NESSAholics.com
Other Topics => Polls => Topic started by: PIBby on December 31, 2003, 04:43:30 pm
-
Hmmm?
I think you get it . . .
-
Nothing.
-
Protestant (thank you Martin Luther)
Denomination: Christian Reformed Church (http://www.crcna.org/)
-
guess :wink:
-
Judaism!
-
Proud to say that I am Catholic
Manda
-
Judaism!
:newbie:
-
I want to be hinduuuuuuu...cuz it's interesting...or buddhism! cuz buddha isn't a god, and Buddha doesn't wannna be!
but I guess I am a christian?
-
I'm not a NEWBIE!
8O
You guess you're Christian. Cathoicism! It's what's for dinner. :D
-
I'm Catholic.
-
Protestant (thank you Martin Luther)
Lol... he's my god knows how many greats grandfather or granduncle or something... my grand uncle was able to trace our family back to him and found out he is a direct decendent. it was so he could prove he wasnt jewish during the holocaust in germany.
I'm protestant too! Christian! :) I was baptised 2 and a half years ago.
-
I want to be hinduuuuuuu...cuz it's interesting...or buddhism! cuz buddha isn't a god, and Buddha doesn't wannna be!
but I guess I am a christian?
PS . . . Greek Mythology is interesting but I don't want to be a Greek god, Aphrodite or Zeus or Ares, I don't want to be a pagan. See?
PPS I'm a Catholic.
Martin Luther . . . I uhhhh, heart him, of course, Kev :D
:X
-
I'm a free lance Catholic 8)
-
Catholic
-
I'm not a NEWBIE!
With an answer like that . . .
-
A year minus 120+ days :D
-
i'm atheist
i believe in human reason and love - that's hard enough sometimes...
-
I am Catholic.
:)
-
I'm more Catholic! So =P
-
I'm more Catholic! So =P
How so?
-
There are a lot of Catholics! lol.
I go to a Catholic school... so I've had to take a few courses about Catholicism.
-
I was confirmed last April.
I forgot whats after Confirmation?
Holy Sacrament?
*thinks*
oh well, I know I have to do it soon.
Manda
A Proud Catholic
-
Well, I've been brought up in Islam...
-
Well, I've been brought up in Islam...
Kool I visited a mosque once we had to cover our heads with a hat or something and we had to wash ourselfs three times plus we got our names written in arabic which was read backwards which i thought was sooo cool. 8)
-
OHHH!!!! OOOOO!!!!!
speaking of confirmation, Whats everyone's Confirmation name?
mine is Matthew :D
(is that spelled with 1 t or 2 t's?)
-
Genevieve :D
and its two T's Kulp. :wink:
-
What on EARTH is a confirmation name!? EH!?
Well, i have been baptised and our family is traditionaly Irish Protestant but hmmmm i'm not so sure what i am...
-
we got our names written in arabic which was read backwards which i thought was sooo cool. 8)
:roflmao:
It isn't backwards if you look at it from an Arabian perspective... :razz:
-
i'm Presbyterian
Amanda
-
Joan is my confirmation name.
also, my middle name..
also, my mother's name
-
I'm more Catholic! So =P
How so?
God loves me more.
Yes a lot of Catholics but how about practicing? Who forced themselves out of bed to go to Mass on this feast of Mary the Mother of God morning?
-
Who forced themselves out of bed to go to Mass on this feast of Mary the Mother of God morning?
Not me, lol... I thought about it but going to bed at 330 and waking up at 730 wasn't going to work out for me :wink:
-
Catholic. my confirmation name is Lucy. however, my dad is Methodist, which is fun as well. Frankly, I don't get the whole denomination thing. but that's a different discussion :-P
*Rosie: A confirmation name is the name of a certain saint that you chose when you get confirmed. You study that saint and such before you get confirmed.*
-
Catholic. my confirmation name is Lucy. however, my dad is Methodist, which is fun as well. Frankly, I don't get the whole denomination thing. but that's a different discussion :-P
Lucy is fun! I wish I picked Lucy! Wanna trade?
Actually you know who I wish I picked? Saint Joseph of Cupertino. Patron of test takers, and I take lots of tests!
-
Shinodaism for those who know anything about it, it would sound as to be towards one god, but it's focus is six.
-
Shinodaism for those who know anything about it, it would sound as to be towards one god, but it's focus is six.
hehehehe
-
:?:
-
Catholic. my confirmation name is Lucy. however, my dad is Methodist, which is fun as well. Frankly, I don't get the whole denomination thing. but that's a different discussion :-P
Lucy is fun! I wish I picked Lucy! Wanna trade?
Actually you know who I wish I picked? Saint Joseph of Cupertino. Patron of test takers, and I take lots of tests!
lol, you got to have a male saint name? we could only have one that matched our gender :-P And no i don't want to trade! hehe, Lucy is a fun Saint.
-
Catholic. my confirmation name is Lucy. however, my dad is Methodist, which is fun as well. Frankly, I don't get the whole denomination thing. but that's a different discussion :-P
Lucy is fun! I wish I picked Lucy! Wanna trade?
Actually you know who I wish I picked? Saint Joseph of Cupertino. Patron of test takers, and I take lots of tests!
lol, you got to have a male saint name? we could only have one that matched our gender :-P And no i don't want to trade! hehe, Lucy is a fun Saint.
No I don't have St. Joseph test taker guy. I learned about him too late to pick him.
I do have a male name though.
-
Urgh . . . Confirmation is in March!! I think we have to make ours with St. Stephen, though, because fish don't live under water. 8O I think mine's going to be Mary Magdalene, though. I try not to think about it that much, because I'd pick 87 if I could.
I really wanted it to be Judas Iscariot; however, Judas is not a saint. Piss on them, I'm gettin' him CANONIZED! :D Well . . .
Judas betrayed Christ, true. Judas STILL felt so bad about what he'd done, he hanged (YES - Hanged, he hanged himself, I hung the picture) himself. Now, that bitch SIMON PETER denies Jesus, and doesn't feel bad about it! Even Mary Magdalene is all, "What the fuck are you doing, bitch?" the third (or second, depending on which Gospel - the LAST time, nonetheless) time he does it. But, hell! Peter gets to be the first Pope, does other stuff, greets you at the "Golden Gates," and still . . . Judas receives NO PRAISE! Urghhh . . . Plus, if people can pick Kory (did I miss something?) as their Confirmation name, I can choose Judas Iscariot. :)
PS The Feast of the Solemnity - No one's at this Mass but me. And Father.
PPS Jesus Christ Superstar is very, very accurate. I'm sooo not joshin', either.
-
my mom=catholic my dad= jewish
Shelly=Jewish due to the fact that my mom didn't want my grandparents on my dads side not to see me because they refused to see me if I wasn't jewish. So yup...the end. I don't go to temple....but I celebrate the jew holidays...don't celebrate christmas or easter or any of that stuff.
-
I just used my second name.
lol
since my birth name is amanda-lynette I used Lynette as my confirmation name.
:)
Manda
-
Was it St. Lucy or St. Cecilia who "they" tried to kill 3 times? I was thinking it was St. Cecilia, then again, I'm 13 and senile . . . so.
-
Was it St. Lucy or St. Cecilia who "they" tried to kill 3 times? I was thinking it was St. Cecilia, then again, I'm 13 and senile . . . so.
They did that to EVERYONE
-
NO! They didn't. Only a few, Cecilia, (I think) being one of the few.
They didn't do it to EVERYONE.
-
everyyyoneee
-
Nope, you're lying. Liar.
-
What on EARTH is a confirmation name!? EH!?
Well, i have been baptised and our family is traditionaly Irish Protestant but hmmmm i'm not so sure what i am...
Irish protestant? Not Church of England? Heh, nice to know. I always assumed you were Anglican.
As for me, I'm a Catholic. Everyone I know is. Spain is so far behind anywhere else in the world when it comes to religious diversity.
About confirmation names... we don't get them here. I mean, I know you're supposed to but I guess it was probably lost somewhere along the way and people don't get them anymore, at least where I live. I haven't had my confirmation though, so I'm not sure.
-
catholic
-
About confirmation names... we don't get them here. I mean, I know you're supposed to but I guess it was probably lost somewhere along the way and people don't get them anymore, at least where I live. I haven't had my confirmation though, so I'm not sure.
egh, I've never really understood the point of them. I think it's more of a tradition than anything.
-
About confirmation names... we don't get them here. I mean, I know you're supposed to but I guess it was probably lost somewhere along the way and people don't get them anymore, at least where I live. I haven't had my confirmation though, so I'm not sure.
egh, I've never really understood the point of them. I think it's more of a tradition than anything.
Taking on a new name is a rebirth. It's your start as an adult in the Church. Now that's who you are.
-
whoops :oops:
-
About confirmation names... we don't get them here. I mean, I know you're supposed to but I guess it was probably lost somewhere along the way and people don't get them anymore, at least where I live. I haven't had my confirmation though, so I'm not sure.
egh, I've never really understood the point of them. I think it's more of a tradition than anything.
Taking on a new name is a rebirth. It's your start as an adult in the Church. Now that's who you are.
but...I like being Jessica....it suits me just well....I don't want to be Saint Lucy and have no eyes! :oops:
-
Ohh well, I don't make the rules . . .
-
Ohh well, I don't make the rules . . .
isn't that always your excuse? :wink:
-
Ohh well, I don't make the rules . . .
isn't that always your excuse? :wink:
I just follow them.
It is. :wink:
-
Ohh well, I don't make the rules . . .
lol, i know, i was just kiddin :wink: :)
-
Ohh well, I don't make the rules . . .
lol, i know, i was just kiddin :wink: :)
I know, as was I--I DO make the rules!! :wink:
-
lol, i know, i was just kiddin :wink: :)
Joshin' . . .
-
Ohh well, I don't make the rules . . .
lol, i know, i was just kiddin :wink: :)
I know, as was I--I DO make the rules!! :wink:
eeeee 8O
and Cece - seriously, you're only the second person i've ever heard - well - in this case seen - use 'joshin' instead of kidding. :-P
-
I don't use it that often. I, myself, actually just heard it a little while back.
-
I don't use it that often. I, myself, actually just heard it a little while back.
You say it A L L the time!
-
Never!
Or maybe it's one of those things I do or say but don't realize it. Like, my Mom and I make fun of this gy who pronounces breakfast, "bref-kist" and I've made fun of him so often I say brefkist without realizing it. :X
-
Never!
Or maybe it's one of those things I do or say but don't realize it. Like, my Mom and I make fun of this gy who pronounces breakfast, "bref-kist" and I've made fun of him so often I say brefkist without realizing it. :X
It must be
-
Must be!
-
lmao, the only other person i've ever heard say it was this kid in my highschool. he was one of those kids who was really super smart, but acted like he'd never been let out of a cage until two days ago, so he'd say really weird things and we'd all be like WTF? but i have to admit, it is a fun saying :wink:
-
I know, but I didn't realize my trend-setting skills AND trends reached even New York! :X
Or . . .
-
hahaha, you're just that cool Cece :wink:
-
This I know.
-
Christian
Non-denominational
-
i don't know what I qualify as, an Athiest? I don't know. But relgion is a joke.
*This is just my opinion.*
No offense to the Bible-thumping Christians or anything, but I am utterly confused by the origin of God. He's just there. And we're supposed to just believe that. No thanks. I've got too many brain cells to fall for that one.
The Bible is another thing I really don't get. Prejudice comes from the Bible. And if "God is love" why does He detest gays? What a load of shit :roll:
-
It messes up The Plannn . . .
-
Catholic...i'm in confirmation classes right now. there's about a little over a year left before i get confirmed...and i haven't picked my name yet either.
-
I was brought up in the Lutheran Religion. It was nice. Sometimes I go to those kind of churches just for the cultural aspect. There is something nice about going to a small one just like the ones you went to when you were younger, even though I don't like the small community feeling. Catholic Cathederals are nice too.
But now I'm about as Atheist as one can be.
tylor
-
i don't know what I qualify as, an Athiest? I don't know. But relgion is a joke.
*This is just my opinion.*
No offense to the Bible-thumping Christians or anything, but I am utterly confused by the origin of God. He's just there. And we're supposed to just believe that. No thanks. I've got too many brain cells to fall for that one.
The Bible is another thing I really don't get. Prejudice comes from the Bible. And if "God is love" why does He detest gays? What a load of shit :roll:
I must agree, and most people say we who havn't read the whole bible through and havn't had a heavy dose of church know anything...Well I was raised going to baptist church, and I read the bible through, and I've memorized parts, and I don't think any of it is anything short of BS.
I mean, I want a reason to live, and a meaning of life...but I don't see it.
I always think like this...If god is fair and just as the bible says he is...why do some people live peacfully, have no financial problems, or anything, and yet a person can be born, beaten, raped, beaten again, and killed. I don't think that is fair. I don't think there is justice in that.
I am going to bed, I might go into more later, but I can't find any god being fair and just that way...
-
If god is fair and just as the bible says he is...why can some people be born, beaten, raped, beaten again, and killed. I don't think that is fair. I don't think there is justice in that.
I've wondered that myself. I've even thought about Him putting Christ through all that He did, and God sitting back and saying, "This is all He has do, just be tortured and crucified, then My plan will have worked," and I've just wondered Okay . . . Because You're the One Who's going to suffer, right Yaweh? People've always said, "God loved us so much He sacrificed His own Son," but if He loved us even more He would've sacrificed Himself, it seems, so His Son wouldn't have had to go through with it.
Yes, I do believe in the Holy Trinity, but this is just something I've been *pondering* for a while, now. ;)
Also, to get back on track, God's supposed to have a plan for everything. So the deaths of people are just plans. The assumed excuse for God letting Mitchell die was that Mitchell touched so many lives throughout his life and his sickness. And I'm still confused, because God can just say, "Okay, Louisville, KY, you're not pure. I'm going to make this 14-year-old boy suffer for a year and a half, then have him die so you become better." It's so much bullshit. I don't know what God thought He was going to do, but it's the worst plan I've heard of in a while, now.
-
relgion is a joke.
*This is just my opinion.*
No offense to the Bible-thumping Christians or anything... I've got too many brain cells to fall for that one... What a load of shit
It would have been better to let your pejorative assertions stand alone as what they are and spare us the empty "no offense" qualification.
but I am utterly confused by the origin of God. He's just there. And we're supposed to just believe that. No thanks. I've got too many brain cells to fall for that one.
Eliminating God simply moves your origins problem down a step. Do you believe that the universe was "just there"? Or do you have too many braincells for that idea also?
The Bible is another thing I really don't get. Prejudice comes from the Bible. And if "God is love" why does He detest gays? What a load of shit :roll:
Perhaps you don't get it because you haven't read it or at least haven't made an effort to understand it. If you had, then I'd be one less Christian having to reiterate "hates the sin, loves the sinner".
I must agree, and most people say we who havn't read the whole bible through and havn't had a heavy dose of church know anything...Well I was raised going to baptist church, and I read the bible through, and I've memorized parts, and I don't think any of it is anything short of BS.
I mean, I want a reason to live, and a meaning of life...but I don't see it.
I always think like this...If god is fair and just as the bible says he is...why do some people live peacfully, have no financial problems, or anything, and yet a person can be born, beaten, raped, beaten again, and killed. I don't think that is fair. I don't think there is justice in that.
I am going to bed, I might go into more later, but I can't find any god being fair and just that way...
This is a reasonable question and one that deserves an answer. Such an answer has been provided many times and in many places. Some of these answers are well founded biblically and unfortunately others aren't. One of the best that I have seen is available here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/death_suffering.asp). It's quite long, but it needs to be.
Much of the world as it is now (post-fall) does not reflect the character of God as did the pre-fall creation. The unfairness of suffering is not a reflection of the character or will of God, but rather the result of an increasing seperation of the world from God. He will not violate our free will. If we don't want God, we don't get Him.
-Kev
-
People create evil. I don't believe there is a Hell, I believe that was something to stop humans from being bad. Evidentally, it didn't work...I mean I do believe humans are punished for their "sins," but I don't believe they go to "Hell."
-
People create evil. I don't believe there is a Hell, I believe that was something to stop humans from being bad. Evidentally, it didn't work...I mean I do believe humans are punished for their "sins," but I don't believe they go to "Hell."
Most Catholic dogma defines hell as "eternal seperation from God" and Christian scholars often declare hell as a self-imposed isolation from God.
In other words, you go to hell because you CHOOSE to reject God in life. It's not a case of God punishing you for your sins. God is just saying "I am here, and if you embrace me you spend eternity with me and if you don't you spend eternity away from me. But it's your choice."
That's largely an interpretation, however, as many Christian religions still support the fire and brimstone view of hell.
-
i don't know what I qualify as, an Athiest? I don't know. But relgion is a joke.
*This is just my opinion.*
No offense to the Bible-thumping Christians or anything, but I am utterly confused by the origin of God. He's just there. And we're supposed to just believe that. No thanks. I've got too many brain cells to fall for that one.
The Bible is another thing I really don't get. Prejudice comes from the Bible. And if "God is love" why does He detest gays? What a load of shit :roll:
Keith,
To piggy back on what Kev said.... SOMETHING has to have been the unmoved mover. Something had to start it all.
Was it energy? Was it matter? Was it gods or A God? You MUST believe that SOMETHING existed first to start all other existance.
Why is the idea of a sentient God any more unrealistic than the idea that "energy and matter" have always existed?
Also, prejudice does not come from the Bible. For example.
Matthew 5:21
"But I say to you that anyone who is angry with a brother will be subjected to judgment. And whoever insults a brother will be brought before the council, and whoever says ‘Fool’ will be sent to fiery hell"
Matthew 5:43
"But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be like your Father in heaven, since he causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Even the tax collectors do the same, don’t they? And if you only greet your brothers, what more do you do? Even the Gentiles do the same, don’t they? So then, be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
The Bible says let GOD judge the morality of a man. Christians condemn the action, not the person.
Which, BTW, is the official stance of the Catholic church on gays. It's ok to be homosexual. It is not ok to act on that. Just as I could be born with the urge to be aggressive and a desire to kill and maime, I am not commiting a sin in the eyes of the church until I act on that urge.
-
i don't know what I qualify as, an Athiest? I don't know. But relgion is a joke.
*This is just my opinion.*
No offense to the Bible-thumping Christians or anything, but I am utterly confused by the origin of God. He's just there. And we're supposed to just believe that. No thanks. I've got too many brain cells to fall for that one.
The Bible is another thing I really don't get. Prejudice comes from the Bible. And if "God is love" why does He detest gays? What a load of shit :roll:
Let us claim our brains are imperial yet make a simple grammatical mistake in the same paragraph. God said let there be morons, and morons there was, and it was good.
-
What a load of shit :roll:
8O 8O 8O 8O 8O 8O 8O 8O 8O NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
-
i don't know what I qualify as, an Athiest? I don't know. But relgion is a joke.
*This is just my opinion.*
No offense to the Bible-thumping Christians or anything, but I am utterly confused by the origin of God. He's just there. And we're supposed to just believe that. No thanks. I've got too many brain cells to fall for that one.
The Bible is another thing I really don't get. Prejudice comes from the Bible. And if "God is love" why does He detest gays? What a load of shit :roll:
Keith,
To piggy back on what Kev said.... SOMETHING has to have been the unmoved mover. Something had to start it all.
Was it energy? Was it matter? Was it gods or A God? You MUST believe that SOMETHING existed first to start all other existance.
Why is the idea of a sentient God any more unrealistic than the idea that "energy and matter" have always existed?
Or you could take the stance we don't know what started everything, and not believe anything. And then laugh at people who jump to conclusions. The only reason you need to believe in something is for your own mental health --and mine is fading. :wink:
tylor
-
Much of the world as it is now (post-fall) does not reflect the character of God as did the pre-fall creation. The unfairness of suffering is not a reflection of the character or will of God, but rather the result of an increasing seperation of the world from God. He will not violate our free will. If we don't want God, we don't get Him.
-Kev
Wow, great answer. I'm going to use that one. Do you know why he won't violate our free will?
-
Or you could take the stance we don't know what started everything, and not believe anything. And then laugh at people who jump to conclusions. The only reason you need to believe in something is for your own mental health --and mine is fading. :wink:
tylor
But you have to believe SOMETHING. Even if your belief is "I don't know what the unmoved mover was" that is still a belief.
Either way, you must accept that SOMETHING started it all. If you accept that SOMETHING started it and you believe there is no more empyrical evidence for one source than another then it is no more or less intelligent to BELIEVE (notice the word is BELIEVE not KNOW) in one than another.
Therefore, if you believe that we exist and you believe there is no empyrical evidence AGAINST a God then you CANNOT, rationally, believe it is foolish for a person to believe IN a God unless you are AGAINST the practice of having a "BELIEF", which case you will always only believe things that have strict empyrical evidence in support of them. Which is depressing as all hell.
-
i don't know what I qualify as, an Athiest? I don't know. But relgion is a joke.
*This is just my opinion.*
No offense to the Bible-thumping Christians or anything, but I am utterly confused by the origin of God. He's just there. And we're supposed to just believe that. No thanks. I've got too many brain cells to fall for that one.
The Bible is another thing I really don't get. Prejudice comes from the Bible. And if "God is love" why does He detest gays? What a load of shit :roll:
Keith,
To piggy back on what Kev said.... SOMETHING has to have been the unmoved mover. Something had to start it all.
Was it energy? Was it matter? Was it gods or A God? You MUST believe that SOMETHING existed first to start all other existance.
Why is the idea of a sentient God any more unrealistic than the idea that "energy and matter" have always existed?
Also, prejudice does not come from the Bible. For example.
Matthew 5:21
"But I say to you that anyone who is angry with a brother will be subjected to judgment. And whoever insults a brother will be brought before the council, and whoever says ‘Fool’ will be sent to fiery hell"
Matthew 5:43
"But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be like your Father in heaven, since he causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Even the tax collectors do the same, don’t they? And if you only greet your brothers, what more do you do? Even the Gentiles do the same, don’t they? So then, be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
The Bible says let GOD judge the morality of a man. Christians condemn the action, not the person.
Which, BTW, is the official stance of the Catholic church on gays. It's ok to be homosexual. It is not ok to act on that. Just as I could be born with the urge to be aggressive and a desire to kill and maime, I am not commiting a sin in the eyes of the church until I act on that urge.
You dont have to believe anything. How could there be nothing before and everything now? Isnt it logically impossible to start with nothing? How can nothing exist? Nothing cant exist, its a redundancy. Nothing had to start at some point, everything could be infinite, much like you could never count to the last number, you could never find a slated point for the beginning of time. I believe the logic of the universe is far beyond the comprehension of humankind, and there is no true starting point in creation.
-
In other words, you go to hell because you CHOOSE to reject God in life. It's not a case of God punishing you for your sins. God is just saying "I am here, and if you embrace me you spend eternity with me and if you don't you spend eternity away from me. But it's your choice."
um..thats not entirely true..a person can say they accept god and still go to hell..its not about just accepting..you have to proove to god that hes in your heart faithfully by showing it from your soul completely....
And then again nobody knows if thier is a hell or not, really...
-
You dont have to believe anything. How could there be nothing before and everything now? Isnt it logically impossible to start with nothing? How can nothing exist? Nothing cant exist, its a redundancy. Nothing had to start at some point, everything could be infinite, much like you could never count to the last number, you could never find a slated point for the beginning of time. I believe the logic of the universe is far beyond the comprehension of humankind, and there is no true starting point in creation.
Yes you do. Because even if you choose not to believe in anything, then not believing in anything is your belief. Therefore, you MUST believe in something.
And besides, if you say there is no starting point for creation then you are defineing matter and energy as your starting point.
You contradict yourself in your own post like 4 times.
Your answer to the question of "where did the universe come from" is "the universe has just always been!"
Then fine, matter and energy are your god. They are your unmoved-mover. Your creation. Period.
You can change the language all you want to, but you're still saying the same thing.
-
you said
"SOMETHING must have existed first"
I dont believe SOMETHING existed first, i think it was all always here
therefore i dont believe anything as in; I don't believe that there was a starting point
and you cant say if i believe there was no starting point, then i believe what is now was the starting point. I dont believe in a starting point at all. What there is now, never "started" there is no "start"
AND i believe in NOTHING, nothing is NOT something.
I believe that statement is technically possible and impossible so you are 50% right on the contradiction,
In such even that believing in nothing is something for your point of view, my belief is that existance is beyond human comprehension therefore cannot be argued or proven.
-
you said
"SOMETHING must have existed first"
I dont believe SOMETHING existed first, i think it was all always here
therefore i dont believe anything as in; I don't believe that there was a starting point
and you cant say if i believe there was no starting point, then i believe what is now was the starting point. I dont believe in a starting point at all. What there is now, never "started" there is no "start"
AND i believe in NOTHING, nothing is NOT something.
I believe that statement is technically possible and impossible so you are 50% right on the contradiction,
In such even that believing in nothing is something for your point of view, my belief is that existance is beyond human comprehension therefore cannot be argued or proven.
So to my point, if SOMETHING was always there then SOMETHING existed first. Duh.
So you don't believe in a linear universe? If time stretches back forever, then how did stars and planets get where they are now? Explain dark matter and anti-gravity to me. If time went back forever then all matter would be infinitly far apart and all energy would be infinitly dispersed. Unless you believe space isn't infinit but time is? Even then, you can't explain the miliseconds before the big bang.
*waits patiently for Pete to Google up these recent scientific discoveries*
-
Much of the world as it is now (post-fall) does not reflect the character of God as did the pre-fall creation. The unfairness of suffering is not a reflection of the character or will of God, but rather the result of an increasing seperation of the world from God. He will not violate our free will. If we don't want God, we don't get Him.
-Kev
Wow, great answer. I'm going to use that one. Do you know why he won't violate our free will?
I'm no great expert and I've certainly had no formal instruction in theology, so do not take the things I say as absolutely final (I've been wrong before). Now that the disclaimer is out of the way I'll try to answer.
The reason I believe that God won't violate our free choice is biblical. (These are NEB quotes, I don't particularly like this translation, but it's all I have to hand. Obviously, the emphasis is mine (along with any spelling errors ;-))).
"Such prayer is right and approved by God our Saviour, Whose will it is that all men should find salvation and come to know the truth. For there is one God, and also one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus, Himself man, who sacraficed Himself to win freedom for all mankind"
"Destroyed they shall be, because they did not open their minds to love of the truth, so as to find salvation. Therefore God puts them under a delusion, which works upon them to believe the lie, so that they may all be brought to judgement, all who do not believe the truth but make sinfulness their deliberate choice"
The will of God is that all would be saved via His provision (the work of Christ) for the salvation of all. But we read that not all will be saved because some will deliberately reject this salvation. In spite of God's will, each of us have the final choice.
As for the reason why God won't violate our free will. I couldn't give you a definate answer at the moment. I've never given it much thought. Sorry.
-Kev
-
So to my point, if SOMETHING was always there then SOMETHING existed first. Duh.
If something was always there then something doesn't have to be first. In order to be first you have to have something to be second. Point out to me what was second if something has always existed, and therefore first.
tylor
-
Much of the world as it is now (post-fall) does not reflect the character of God as did the pre-fall creation. The unfairness of suffering is not a reflection of the character or will of God, but rather the result of an increasing seperation of the world from God. He will not violate our free will. If we don't want God, we don't get Him.
-Kev
Wow, great answer. I'm going to use that one. Do you know why he won't violate our free will?
I'm no great expert and I've certainly had no formal instruction in theology, so do not take the things I say as absolutely final (I've been wrong before). Now that the disclaimer is out of the way I'll try to answer.
The reason I believe that God won't violate our free choice is biblical. (These are NEB quotes, I don't particularly like this translation, but it's all I have to hand. Obviously, the emphasis is mine (along with any spelling errors ;-))).
"Such prayer is right and approved by God our Saviour, Whose will it is that all men should find salvation and come to know the truth. For there is one God, and also one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus, Himself man, who sacraficed Himself to win freedom for all mankind"
"Destroyed they shall be, because they did not open their minds to love of the truth, so as to find salvation. Therefore God puts them under a delusion, which works upon them to believe the lie, so that they may all be brought to judgement, all who do not believe the truth but make sinfulness their deliberate choice"
The will of God is that all would be saved via His provision (the work of Christ) for the salvation of all. But we read that not all will be saved because some will deliberately reject this salvation. In spite of God's will, each of us have the final choice.
As for the reason why God won't violate our free will. I couldn't give you a definate answer at the moment. I've never given it much thought. Sorry.
-Kev
Thanks kev. I thought your answer was great..... I do feel some people stop believing for the wrong reasons. If they stop believing in God for the wrong reasons you get reborn again christians who want to talk your ear off about NOTHING but Jesus. You answer will help me keep any I meet as just regular sane christians. :wink:
tylor
-
I wasnt googling anything. And im not looking for what scientists or religious afficiendos say. If you go back to the closing sentence in my first statement you will see what i think. But ill repeat it, I do not believe anyone on this planet can comprehend how things began or would come to be the way they are. If i was to believe anything it is that i only believe the redundancy of nothing. In order for nothing to even exist, there must be everything. I think if i were in person i could explain how i feel to you better...But i definitely dont know what started anything, and definitely wouldnt take ANYONES word for it.
-
So to my point, if SOMETHING was always there then SOMETHING existed first. Duh.
If something was always there then something doesn't have to be first. In order to be first you have to have something to be second. Point out to me what was second if something has always existed, and therefore first.
tylor
Tylor im completely with ya on that, we have had some good conversations on existance before if i remember correctly.
-
So to my point, if SOMETHING was always there then SOMETHING existed first. Duh.
If something was always there then something doesn't have to be first. In order to be first you have to have something to be second. Point out to me what was second if something has always existed, and therefore first.
tylor
Tylor im completely with ya on that, we have had some good conversations on existance before if i remember correctly.
Yeah I remember. Unfortunately I don't have as much time as I used to in order to systematically construct my point of view on things....as well as point out other's faults in thinking. Grakthis has many. :wink: I love Grakthis though and his ability to bring topics up for discussion. I enjoy reading and taking short jabs at his words. :D Great fun.
tylor
Edit: I had to take my words out of your quote.....
-
So to my point, if SOMETHING was always there then SOMETHING existed first. Duh.
If something was always there then something doesn't have to be first. In order to be first you have to have something to be second. Point out to me what was second if something has always existed, and therefore first.
tylor
Untruth. Double-plus bad.
Just because there is no second does not mean there wasn't a first. Because there is always a potential for a second.
And arguably, life, protient chains and sentience came second. Or even, gravity. Or maybe dark matter came 2nd. Thee are a million things I could argue came 2nd to matter and energy in a purely scientific creation.
-
Yeah I remember. Unfortunately I don't have as much time as I used to in order to systematically construct my point of view on things....as well as point out other's faults in thinking. Grakthis has many. :wink: I love Grakthis though and his ability to bring topics up for discussion. I enjoy reading and taking short jabs at his words. :D Great fun.
tylor
Edit: I had to take my words out of your quote.....
WHile there are many many many things I say that I fully expect people to disagree with, I have few or NO flaws in my thinking. My thinking is as close to flawless as you are gonna find in a person.
Sometimes, however, a near flawless thinking process will produce flawed results IF the perceptions the thinking begins with are flawed. And all human perception is flawed.
And on a side note, I enjoy your short jabs at my points as well.
It still doesn't change the fact that your previous post is just WRONG on about a dozen levels.
And that Pete is avoiding reading up on facts that DECIMATE his view of the universe.
-
His question was, What did come second? good luck. I also strongly oppose the idea that gravity could have come second, Everything in space has an atmosphere AND gravity, forcing gravity to be first with no matter what was created.
on the second day god created ;) lol
And i told you i dont believe anything, how can something decimate my beliefs? Where is the pudding Andrew? Thats right, there is none. No one knows what was first, or if anything was first, or if was always just here, or if it was a freak accident. You just DONT know.
-
Nothing had to start at some point, everything could be infinite, much like you could never count to the last number, you could never find a slated point for the beginning of time. I believe the logic of the universe is far beyond the comprehension of humankind, and there is no true starting point in creation.
And i told you i dont believe anything, how can something decimate my beliefs? Where is the pudding Andrew? Thats right, there is none. No one knows what was first, or if anything was first, or if was always just here, or if it was a freak accident. You just DONT know.
Weeeeeee! Self contradiction from one page to the other! In the first post you state a belief. The universe extends infinitly backwards through time. In the second post you declare that you believe in NOS'INC MR LEBOWWWWWSKI! Weeee!!!!
You did state a belief Pete. You said the universe has no starting point. Therefore, the universe goes back an infinit amount of time. Therefore, all of the laws of gravity cannot exist. Dark matter cannot exist. The universe cannot exist. The big bang COULD not have happened. Science, as of this moment, says if the universe is infinit and time is infinit then the universe could never reach it's current observed state via scientific laws.
Do you doubt your own existance, mr descarte?
As for what came 2nd, I listed about a 5 different things! After matter and energy we had gravity, then light alloys, protien chains, light gasses, followed by denser gasses, heavier alloys, complex protient based life etc etc etc. Continue on ad infinidum.
And don't give me some speech about how those things are made up of matter and energy and therefore don't count. The number 10 is made up of other numbers but it still comes after 1.
If I have only one child, isn't he still the first child? Even if there is no 2nd?
Have I debunked his statement thuroughly enough yet?
Edit @ Pete - Everything in space does NOT have a atmosphere. I have no idea where you got that notion from. In fact, MOST things in space do not have enough gravity to keep an atmosphere of any kind.
Edit Edit @ Pete - Oh yeah. And not everything has gravity. Energy doesn't have gravity. Only matter does. So it's possible at some point EVERYTHING was Energy (since energy and mass are interchangeable) and therefore there would have been no gravity at that time.
-
Science, as of this moment, says if the universe is infinit and time is infinit then the universe could never reach it's current observed state via scientific laws.
As for what came 2nd, I listed about a 5 different things! After matter and energy we had gravity, then light alloys, protien chains, light gasses, followed by denser gasses, heavier alloys, complex protient based life etc etc etc. Continue on ad infinidum.
And don't give me some speech about how those things are made up of matter and energy and therefore don't count. The number 10 is made up of other numbers but it still comes after 1.
If I have only one child, isn't he still the first child? Even if there is no 2nd?
Have I debunked his statement thuroughly enough yet?
Edit @ Pete - Everything in space does NOT have a atmosphere. I have no idea where you got that notion from. In fact, MOST things in space do not have enough gravity to keep an atmosphere of any kind.
Edit Edit @ Pete - Oh yeah. And not everything has gravity. Energy doesn't have gravity. Only matter does. So it's possible at some point EVERYTHING was Energy (since energy and mass are interchangeable) and therefore there would have been no gravity at that time.
You miss my point entirely. I dont believe these scientific explanations that you follow so blindly. You have no idea what was first or second, i have no idea what was first or second. So alas you prove nothing. Most things in space hold gravity and atmosphere, without them they are generally unnaffected by the flux boundaries which hold our universe together. You believe there is an end to the universe? What happens at the end of the universe? How can it end? What is there a big wall out there in space?
You dont allow me to give you a speech on the one thing yet you know that it would put a stab into your theories....gases, protien chains etc are all made up of elements, and if they were all always here, then what? evolution of the elements due to light, magnetic, and electrical energy? Life could be formed by a lightning bolt that just happened to hit the right thing in the right place at the right time like winning the lottery x 10 billion. I AM NOT saying this is my belief, im just saying there is no way to know for sure or even have a good idea.
I would call it my only child, not my 1st child. Without a 2nd i think thats pretty silly. When you see an orange all alone, is it the 1st orange? No its just an orange. If you have a child he is more like the 128379982356213th child if you want to be technical since lots of people had children before you. Or is it a basis of what is YOURS? If you were always energy in some form or another, doesnt that mean your energy could have created another child beforehand making your 1st child possibly your second, or third or 10000000th possibly?
-
You miss my point entirely. I dont believe these scientific explanations that you follow so blindly. You have no idea what was first or second, i have no idea what was first or second. So alas you prove nothing. Most things in space hold gravity and atmosphere, without them they are generally unnaffected by the flux boundaries which hold our universe together. You believe there is an end to the universe? What happens at the end of the universe? How can it end? What is there a big wall out there in space?
I never said the universe was finite. Why put words in my mouth? What point will that accomplish? As for your "holds our universe together", if you were a good little n00b and googled the words I told you to google you would see that NOTHING holds our universe together. In fact, our universe is accelerating AWAY from itself.
And these scientific "explanations" you seem to think I follow so blindly are demonstrable observable events. We know what dark matter is. We know what anti-gravity is. Though we haven't settled on a proper name for it yet, and we don't have the mathematical details, we know what it does and we KNOW it destroys the notion of a cyclical universe. The Big Bang was a single isolated event. It will not happen again. The universe has a finite time line after which matter and energy will be SO dispersed that all life will cease and all energy will be used up and become fronzen matter. The universe will be dead without influence from an outside force.
You dont allow me to give you a speech on the one thing yet you know that it would put a stab into your theories....gases, protien chains etc are all made up of elements, and if they were all always here, then what? evolution of the elements due to light, magnetic, and electrical energy? Life could be formed by a lightning bolt that just happened to hit the right thing in the right place at the right time like winning the lottery x 10 billion. I AM NOT saying this is my belief, im just saying there is no way to know for sure or even have a good idea.
I don't let you use that speech because I already debunked it. It's done. Just because everything else CAME from Matter and Energy doesn't mean matter and Energy didn't come first. Obviously, matter and energy HAD to come first otherwise we couldn't HAVE complex protien chains. It's like saying that legos don't come before the lego castle. They sure as fuck do! Otherwise we couldn't have the lego castle!
I would call it my only child, not my 1st child. Without a 2nd i think thats pretty silly. When you see an orange all alone, is it the 1st orange? No its just an orange. If you have a child he is more like the 128379982356213th child if you want to be technical since lots of people had children before you. Or is it a basis of what is YOURS? If you were always energy in some form or another, doesnt that mean your energy could have created another child beforehand making your 1st child possibly your second, or third or 10000000th possibly?
Blah blah blah. The first part of this is symantics nonsense and I won't debate it more. The 2nd part is assuming the universe is cyclical, which most scientific evidence says is wrong, therefore, I am ignoring it as well.
-
You base everything on scientific evidence which i dont believe in still. Therefore you have "debunked" nothing. And i can still see you dont know where everything came from(no one does), all you know is what you choose to believe which holds no real hard proof.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, you cannot fight that
SO if the universe is dispersing, where can it stop, where is the END, there is none that anyone can prove or show, as far as im concerned space continues infinitely, and for every bit of energy that disperses, another energy is compressed. Im glad science says this is impossible, and once again state that no one on this planet can comprehend existance
I dont know but if you are so into scientists you should know that many scientists also believe that space continues proportionately with time, and time is infinite
-
You base everything on scientific evidence which i dont believe in still. Therefore you have "debunked" nothing.
Andrew has succeeded in debunking your arguments because your only response has been that you "don't believe" in the scientific evidence that he has presented. What you believe is not an issue. If you can't/don't refute the evidence that Andrew has presented, then his argument stands and your's falls.
Alternatively, if you're willing to hold onto a position that is scientifically impossible and defend it with an argument along the lines of "no one on this planet can comprehend existance" then your position is not falsifiable and so the debate should end here.
-Kev
-
You base everything on scientific evidence which i dont believe in still. Therefore you have "debunked" nothing.
Andrew has succeeded in debunking your arguments because your only response has been that you "don't believe" in the scientific evidence that he has presented. What you believe is not an issue. If you can't/don't refute the evidence that Andrew has presented, then his argument stands and your's falls.
Alternatively, if you're willing to hold onto a position that is scientifically impossible and defend it with an argument along the lines of "no one on this planet can comprehend existance" then your position is not falsifiable and so the debate should end here.
-Kev
But there is no evidence, just theories, And i started by saying i dont believe yet he continued to argue with scientists say this, and scientists say that. In my last post i put in information opposing his ideas from Einstein's theories,, so i feel that he has not debunked me
space + time = infinite ...the best theory there is
things like that cannot be proven wrong or right, you cannot debunk a belief with no substantial proof,
Another way to look at it is, A scientist said pink grass grows on Pluto, You can simply not believe this and i can say its true because a scientist said so, therefore i debunk you?
-
But there is no evidence, just theories, And i started by saying i dont believe yet he continued to argue with scientists say this, and scientists say that. In my last post i put in information opposing his ideas from Einstein's theories,, so i feel that he has not debunked me
space + time = infinite ...the best theory there is
things like that cannot be proven wrong or right, you cannot debunk a belief with no substantial proof,
Another way to look at it is, A scientist said pink grass grows on Pluto, You can simply not believe this and i can say its true because a scientist said so, therefore i debunk you?
Yeah dude. I like arguing with you and all, but you just sound like a beligerant ass right now.
First, your einstein mathemetics are both in-applicable and irrelevant. In fact, Einstein has had about alf a dozen theories proven WRONG over the years by later finds.
Look, did you google up the buzz words I told you to google? Because if you did then you have all the proof for what I am telling you that you should need. I will assume you did not and explain it to you in small words.
We are now able to observe and measure an "anti-gravity" force in space. What it does, is it is litterally the opposite of gravity. Where gravity gets stronger the closer 2 objects are, anti-gravity gets stronger the further away 2 objects are. And anti-gravity (aka dark matter or about a dozen other names) PUSHES things apart.
So what this means is that the universe will continue to push away from itself at increasing speeds as it slowly breaks the pull of gravity. We have as much evidence for anti-gravity as we do anything else that occurs in the universe. It is a theory, and it fits the observed facts of the universe and nothing disproves it. Where as there is 0 evidence to support the concepts of a cyclical universe you are proposing. The idea of a bibg bang + big crunch universe was pretty well trashed about 10 years ago becase we see NO evidence that expansion is slowing in the background radiation of the universe.
Now you can give me these lines about "I don't believe in your theories" all you want. But by that matter, I can just say "Pete doesn't matter because pete has an extra chromosome" and no matter how much you dispute this, I can just say "I don't believe you." Hmmm, does this tactic sound anything like what some other people on this MB do that you can't stand?
What I am telling you, Pete, is that science seems to support the notion that space and time are infinitly reaching into the FUTURE, but NOT into the past. Science agrees that the universe is expanding with time. Science does not, however, agree that the universe will eventually collapse in on itself again and recreate the big bang.
But you can have your "belief" all you want. Just as I am sure there ar epeople in this world who "believe" the earth is the center of our solar system and "believe" the world is flat.
But much like those people, you're still wrong.
-
lol, you sound like a beligerant ass, Einstein has been proven wrong and scientists today may as well be proven wrong. I dont think there is a center of our universe. I believe it expands forever. These scientists say the universe keeps expanding....Well into what? More space....So where does space end? Im just fighting your belief that there is no limit to space. You keep trying to fight me on how things keeps expanding. Im not fighting you about anti gravity, or dark matter at all. Of course things keep expanding, its a push pull system balanced on magnetism and gravitational pull. As we all know magnets lose charge over time, as will planets, thus lessening the strength of the glue holding the planets in sync so to speak. Now im not saying that is exactly how it works, but that is a part of it.
I dont believe there is an end to the universe, or an edge of the universe. This doesnt mean that eventually life will end or wont end, it means that there is no limit to space. So what scientist can prove what is out there? I believe anything could be out there, and i believe in aliens. Not saucer flying aliens that people see in the sky, but i believe life does exist somewhere else, and maybe they do visit here, i really dont know . I also cant prove or disprove any big bang, and if there was or wasnt, i believe that all of the matter that existed previous exists now. I dont believe anything came first or second. I think it was all here. Your theories and arguments arent disproving my beliefs, they are proving something, im not sure sure what, other than the fact that i dont believe something had to be first. Anything and everything could be first, nothing could be first, whatever, i just believe it was all here. Thats the only possiblility i can understand because i cant see matter just appearing out of nowhere. However ill continue to say i dont believe anyone can really understand what actually happened thus making both our arguments insubstantial and boiling on beliefs and theories.
-
So to my point, if SOMETHING was always there then SOMETHING existed first. Duh.
If something was always there then something doesn't have to be first. In order to be first you have to have something to be second. Point out to me what was second if something has always existed, and therefore first.
tylor
Untruth. Double-plus bad.
Just because there is no second does not mean there wasn't a first. Because there is always a potential for a second.
And arguably, life, protient chains and sentience came second. Or even, gravity. Or maybe dark matter came 2nd. Thee are a million things I could argue came 2nd to matter and energy in a purely scientific creation.
Well most of those million things could just be considered variations, characteristics, or corelatives of the same thing. Some of which may have existed forever in the past together. Whatever variation you consider to be first makes no difference, no matter how simple or complex. Because if it has always existed and to find something to come second is only it's variations of complexity, it's charateristics, or it's corelatives --many which might have also existed together forever in the past, then you are not stating what seperately came second. Stating potentials and possibilities is not really coming to a conclusion, which is where my point of view sits.
tylor
-
If I have only one child, isn't he still the first child? Even if there is no 2nd?
They are called only children for a reason. I've never heard someone with such a child refer to the child as his first child. Just saying he/she is the first child implies there is a second. We could go into the nature of ordinal numbers if you wish.
tylor
-
CHRISTIAN OR CATHLOIC NOT QUITE SURE THEIR SOO ALIKE :roll:
-
And i started by saying i dont believe yet he continued to argue with scientists say this, and scientists say that.
Again, what you believe is not relavent. If you have good reasons not to believe the theories Andrew put forward, then you should put those reasons forward. Just stating that you don't believe them is of no value to your side of the argument.
In my last post i put in information opposing his ideas from Einstein's theories, so i feel that he has not debunked me
space + time = infinite ...the best theory there is
This equation makes no sense. I'm sure Einstein didn't come up with it. Space plus time equals infinite? And, like Andrew, I fail to see how Einstein's theories apply. How to they refute Andrew's dark matter anti-gravity arguments or predict that matter/energy has always existed?
things like that cannot be proven wrong or right, you cannot debunk a belief with no substantial proof
Another way to look at it is, A scientist said pink grass grows on Pluto, You can simply not believe this and i can say its true because a scientist said so, therefore i debunk you?
If somebody did use this pink grass "theory" in a debate, I would point to what we know about the evironment on pluto and what we know about grass and demonstrate that it is very unlikely (unreasonably so) that pink grass grows on pluto. The pink grass theory would then stand refuted and unfit to debunk anything. At the very least I would point out that there is nothing to support the pink grass theory. IMO this is the way you should approach Andrew's dark matter/anti-gravity arguments if you want to defend your position against them.
Stated simply: You claimed that matter and energy have always existed, Andrew claims this is not a possibility in light of dark matter/anti-gravity theory. You have failed to challenge this argument except to say that you don't believe the theories correct, which isn't good enough. The "first requires a second" argument may well be of use in arguing that "always existed" is different to "existed first" but it doesn't help your case for an universe that has always existed.
Edit: In fairness, I now realise that you have indeed made the argument that there is no evidence to support DM/AG theories. Andrew hasn't presented any, but if you did google up the words you would see that theorists claim to have some. As for the quality of the evidence, I don't know (I suspect it's dubious).
Edit 2: The second law of thermodynamics is a much more solid argument against what you are saying. In an isolated system (which the universe is by definition) energy tends to become less available for work, NEVER the other way. If matter/energy had always existed then there would be no energy available for work at this point in time (universal heat death). The second law is a natural law, no single counter-example has ever been observered. Every observation we make supports the 2nd law and therefore every one of these observations refutes the idea that matter/energy have always existed.
-Kev
-
Edit 2: The second law of thermodynamics is a much more solid argument against what you are saying. In an isolated system (which the universe is by definition) energy tends to become less available for work, NEVER the other way. If matter/energy had always existed then there would be no energy available for work at this point in time (universal heat death). The second law is a natural law, no single counter-example has ever been observered. Every observation we make supports the 2nd law and therefore every one of these observations refutes the idea that matter/energy have always existed.
-Kev
Oh great, now I have to challenge this argument. I'm pretty sure it's wrong, doesn't apply, or irrelevant. Could you display actual respectable texts of the first and second laws? I'll do the same...as well as browse thru the physics texts to find something wrong with your argument. :wink:
I have to argue it because I love physics. EDIT: :D
tylor
-
These scientists say the universe keeps expanding....Well into what? More space?
FTR: They say that the universe (3 dimensional space) is expanding into 4 dimensional space (hyperspace). That is, 3D space itself is expanding, not that matter is expanding into pre-existing empty 3D space.
-Kev
-
Oh great, now I have to challenge this argument. I'm pretty sure it's wrong, doesn't apply, or irrelevant. Could you display actual respectable texts of the first and second laws?
Any standard physics text book will do. Nobody disagrees when it come to the laws of thermodynamics, so all books should give the same info.
Edit: You are right to mention the 1st law in addition to the second. My argument requires that the amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant. Which it is according to the 1st law.
I have to argue it because I love physics. EDIT: :D
Me too. And you're more than welcome to argue it :)
-Kev
-
4 dimensional space? lol, pink grass on pluto. The 3 dimensions are height, width, and depth. Unless you are planning on speaking of supernatural things, which im neither proven nor disproven on
-
4 dimensional space? lol, pink grass on pluto.
Haha. It does seem like science fiction. But, at one time or another, so did much of what we now consider science fact.
4D hyperspace does not suffer the same fate as the pink grass theory (which I might add, is rapidly becoming my favourite theory ;-)). An extra space dimension is a requirement of the equations of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. This theory is well established experimentally. So unless you have any particular theoretical or experimental evidence against a 4D space, then there's no real reason to reject the idea out of hand. A 4th space dimension is not analogous to pink Plutonian grass, which is not a requirement of a well established theory and also contradicts experimental observations about both pluto and grass.
It should be noted that some (perhaps most) relativists do not consider the 4th space dimension to be real, but simply a convenient mathmatical tool.
The superflous dimension is added to help the reason in reasoning, not to help the traveler in traveling
But the reasons for adopting this view are not scientific. It's probably adopted to preserve the philosophy that the 3D universe is all that there is, or to keep quiet those who suggested that hyperspace could be the home of God, ghosts or other super-natural stuff.
I personally have no problem with a real 4D space (although I don't believe God lives there). But whatever floats your boat. The maths doesn't care either way.
-Kev
-
"So unless you have any particular theoretical or experimental evidence against a 4D space, then there's no real reason to reject the idea out of hand"
I have a popular science that explains 10 dimensions of existance, Its a pretty interesting read.....But i just dont see it as a sure possibility.
Just a random thought. Lets say you are an indestructable molecule. At what point could you end? Mathematics alone prove that infinite IS in fact very real. Nothing else proves an ending or a beginning to anything at all.
Lets say you were to cut something in half, no matter what it is. At what point could you not cut it in half any more? Doesnt that depend on how fine of a cut you make? And how finely are we capable of cutting?..... I believe this relates to mathematics in the form that .001>00001>000000000001, how many zeros can you put? Cant that go on forever? Show me an end and i will believe time has an end and space has an end, and that our universe is the only universe and that we are the only child of creation, if creation exists which is the common belief. It is impossible
-
Superstring theory may or may not accurately depict the makeup of the matter and the universe as a whole. Whether it does or not is irrelevant. What is important is if it accurately predicts phenomena. If it can, it's a useful theory. If it can't, it should be relegated to the trash heap.
-
Superstring theory may or may not accurately depict the makeup of the matter and the universe as a whole. Whether it does or not is irrelevant. What is important is if it accurately predicts phenomena. If it can, it's a useful theory. If it can't, it should be relegated to the trash heap.
Does or doesn't it? Do you know anything about this theory?
-
Does or doesn't it? Do you know anything about this theory?
I know that as of now, it has never been experimentally verified. That may change soon.
-
yay
-
I'm agnostic :)
-
I have a popular science that explains 10 dimensions of existance, Its a pretty interesting read.....But i just dont see it as a sure possibility.
They're up to 11 now :-\ with something called M-Theory.
Just a random thought. Lets say you are an indestructable molecule. At what point could you end?
You can't end, because you'd be indestructable. Neither me or Andrew claimed that matter and energy couldn't be infinite into the future, just not the past. A more relavent question would be, if you were an indestructable molecule, at what point could you begin? Which is a silly question.
Mathematics alone prove that infinite IS in fact very real.
Even if Mathmatics does indeed prove that infinite is real. That doesn't help your case. The position you need to defend is that matter and energy have existed infinitely, not just that infinity is "very real". Are you saying that because infinity is possible, matter and energy must have always existed? If so, can you explain your logic?
Nothing else proves an ending or a beginning to anything at all.
I have given you a thermodynamic proof (*) that matter and enery must have a beginning.
Lets say you were to cut something in half, no matter what it is. At what point could you not cut it in half any more? Doesnt that depend on how fine of a cut you make? And how finely are we capable of cutting?..... I believe this relates to mathematics in the form that .001>00001>000000000001, how many zeros can you put? Cant that go on forever? Show me an end and i will believe time has an end and space has an end, and that our universe is the only universe and that we are the only child of creation, if creation exists which is the common belief. It is impossible
The numbers you use to represent the portions of the "something" we are cutting are an abstraction of reality, not actually reality! Just because the numbers you use in your model are infinitely divisable doesn't mean that matter itself infinitely divisible. Am I supposed to demonstrate an end to the infinite set of all numbers? Similarly, just because the concept of infinity exists in Mathmatics, doesn't necessarily mean that anything is actually infinite in reality.
Your arguments have ceased to be relavent to the issue of whether the matter and enery in the universe has a beginning. Whether or not an indestructable molecule can end, whether or not infinitey is "real", or whether or not you can divide something infinitely does not help your case.
-Kev
* The term "thermodynamic proof" isn't entirely honest. The laws of Themodynamics are based on overwhelming chance, and so can't prove anything in the strictest sense of the word. But to plead chance in your case would be like believing you could drop an ice cube into a glass of water and have the ice cube grow and the water begin to boil.
-
What im saying is that infinite is proven, None of these other theories are proven or observable, Thus making it a more acceptable solution in my opinion.
And how do you know that you cannot cut something in particular infinitely? Has it been proven something could not be cut infinitely? We are only capable of going so small, I assume with technological advances this will increase. No one knows where it actually ends yet.
Interesting on the 11 dimensions, im not saying your beliefs are not true or impossible either, just stating that i have reasons to believe what i do and they are possible. If you completely discredit what i believe it is a matter of opinion from how i see it
-
What im saying is that infinite is proven. None of these other theories are proven or observable, Thus making it a more acceptable solution in my opinion.
The laws of thermodynamics are proven experimentally and observable. Again, just because infinity exists as a mathmatical concept, doesn't mean that anything actually exists with any infinite properties. A circle exists as a concept in maths, but perfect circles do not occur in reality as far as we know. Even if infinity were proven, the possibility that something could be infinite doesn't prove that matter-energy are of infinite age. In fact, as I've already said, there is thermodynamic proof that this is not the case.
And how do you know that you cannot cut something in particular infinitely?
I don't and I didn't claim that it couldn't be. All that I said is that just because numbers can be infinitely divided, does not in any way imply that matter can be. I have no problem with the idea that matter can be cut infinitely.
Has it been proven something could not be cut infinitely?
No proof that I know of.
Interesting on the 11 dimensions, im not saying your beliefs are not true or impossible either, just stating that i have reasons to believe what i do and they are possible.
I only mentioned M-theory as a side note. I don't know much about it. The Maths is way beyond me. Also, you don't need to worry about sparing my beliefs :) If you manage to discredit them, then it's my own fault for placing them into the debating firing line.
If you completely discredit what i believe it is a matter of opinion from how i see it
Discrediting beliefs is not something I set out to do. The reasons I am debating this issue are 1) I enjoy debates and 2) Your argument that special creation is not required, if it were true, undermines mine and Andrew's challenge to Keith's pejorative "too many brain cells" comment (which was an attempt, allbeit a poor one, to discredit my beliefs). I'd very much like keep this challenge in tact. But, if you like, we can agree to disagree, I think I've said everything I have that's worth saying :)
-Kev
-
*yawns*
-
If you are using thermodynamics to create...Doesnt that mean you are just converting energy in a form? The only possible end i see is as Andrew was saying that energy will become too dispersed, Which is a good theory. Yet that shows no change in the amount of energy. I cannot plausibly see a beginning or end to the amount of energy there is. Possibly a big bang forced the energy into a smaller area and created an odd situation that caused life to form, If that is the case i would still lean towards energy was always there, just too dispersed previously as well. In such case that could mean there were previous big bangs which unleashed an entirely different situation so long ago it cannot be accounted for. I wouldnt discount that entirely.
I wouldnt mind agreeing to disagree but this type of bantering tends to improve reasoning skills in the best of us
it doesnt take many braincells to insult someones ideas either ;) Im always interested in peoples point of view in a lot of situations. I have no qualm with any belief that is within reason
-
Pete, read Cantor's works. He pretty much proves that there is no infinity as you think of it. Rather, infinity is relative to what you are measuring. If I am dealing with a number like .0000152 and the highest this value can ever be is .0014, 1000 is infinite in comparison. There are different kinds or flavors of infinity depending on the situation.
Besides, infinity+1>infinity. Infinity is not really a solid concept, but a mathematically useful one.
-
infinite is not a set value and cannot be described as a set value due to the fact that it is a concept based on the fact that there is no end to numerical values
therefore infinite + 1 still just equals infinite
Im not playing the kids game of well i hate you infinite + 1, oh yeah i hate you infinite +2, well i hate you infinite plus infinite. haha beat that....I dont think numbers can be added to a concept
-
If you are using thermodynamics to create...Doesnt that mean you are just converting energy in a form? The only possible end i see is as Andrew was saying that energy will become too dispersed, Which is a good theory. Yet that shows no change in the amount of energy. I cannot plausibly see a beginning or end to the amount of energy there is.
I'm not using the laws of thermodynamics to create. I'm using them to show that matter-energy had a beginning. I use God to create (Genesis 1:1). You say that you cannot see a plausible beginning to matter-energy, but you have not given any support to the idea that matter-energy has always existed. As far as I can tell, all that you have said is that because infinitey exists as a mathmatical tool, it's possible that matter-energy had no starting point.
Because you thought I was using "thermodynamics to create", I assume that you have not understood my argument, so I'll restate it here.
1) The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant (1st law)
2) The amount of energy available for work in the universe is decreasing and NEVER increases (2nd law)
Notice I said "energy available for work" and not simply "energy". If I were to heat an iron bar at one end, then I could place a thermocouple across the bar and get useful work out of that system. Once the bar has cooled, as it always will if left alone, it is not possible to extract useful work from the system. No energy has been destroyed, that would violate the 1st law, the energy still exists within the bar and in the surroundings, but the amount of energy available for work has decreased.
If the universe were of infinite age, then there would be no energy available for work at this point in time. This is not the case, so the universe must be of finite age, it has a beginning, it has a cause (which I hold as the God of the bible).
This argument eliminates the idea that the universe has always existed as a reasonable possibility. Can you challenge this argument?
Possibly a big bang forced the energy into a smaller area and created an odd situation that caused life to form, If that is the case i would still lean towards energy was always there, just too dispersed previously as well. In such case that could mean there were previous big bangs which unleashed an entirely different situation so long ago it cannot be accounted for. I wouldnt discount that entirely.
This is fantastic just-so story. I don't think either of us require such a "theory", do we? So I won't bother to argue against this.
I wouldnt mind agreeing to disagree but this type of bantering tends to improve reasoning skills in the best of us
it doesnt take many braincells to insult someones ideas either ;) Im always interested in peoples point of view in a lot of situations. I have no qualm with any belief that is within reason
Cool 8)
-Kev
-
Energy for work regenerates as matter biodegrades. We have obviously seen huge reductions in energy for work over the past few centuries due to our overly huge population and petroleum fueled machines. Before this very little non living energy was used for anything, so it could have always been here, and not even be necessary to use. Living energy or energy used by living organisms such as plants animals fish etc works on the circle system. As we have seen ecological breakdown these circles are being destroyed causing exinction, however i dont see that as an ending to the overall universe. New stars are born everyday as well as old stars expand and fade into nothing. We know light can be used as a form of energy. I cant be sure of the actual cycle of anything non living though due to the fact that my lifespan is such a minute fraction of existance compared to these energy sources. Your ideas may in fact work however i dont see them as proof in any form that the universe will just come to an end at some point in time. However it does observe the possibility that humankind will most likely come to an end ;)
-
Energy for work regenerates as matter biodegrades. We have obviously seen huge reductions in energy for work over the past few centuries due to our overly huge population and petroleum fueled machines. Before this very little non living energy was used for anything, so it could have always been here, and not even be necessary to use. Living energy or energy used by living organisms such as plants animals fish etc works on the circle system. As we have seen ecological breakdown these circles are being destroyed causing exinction, however i dont see that as an ending to the overall universe. New stars are born everyday as well as old stars expand and fade into nothing. We know light can be used as a form of energy. I cant be sure of the actual cycle of anything non living though due to the fact that my lifespan is such a minute fraction of existance compared to these energy sources. Your ideas may in fact work however i dont see them as proof in any form that the universe will just come to an end at some point in time. However it does observe the possibility that humankind will most likely come to an end ;)
The universe will not come to an "end". I never said this and neither did Kev. The universe WILL die. Die as in, there will be no more energy. Only frozen matter. No more life. No more heat. Absolute 0 will reign.
And as I said 2 times already, I do NOT disagree that matter and time MAY continue on forward for an infinit time... what i challenege is that under the rules of science as we understand them now, time and energy could NOT have gone backwards infinitly and our universe still end up as it is now. Think of it this way. The big bang is one big f'in explosion. And there is nothing to pull it all back together. So things will continue to expand out to infinity. If that occurs, then how did matter get into a position for that explosion? We have no science to answer this.
What you end up with is a VERY Christian friendly universe.
Science as we know it cannot explain HOW the big bang came to be without including an unmoved-mover into the equation.
-
I agree with all the above points basically. I just cant imagine a set beginning in time. Whatever the real answer is im sure it is amazing. Id love it if religion really was correct, and i have a due amount of faith that there is very likely something out there that initiated everything, but im equally worried it isnt and dont want to spend my whole life worshipping and trying to please a god who may not be there, hopefully being a good person with positive intentions will always keep me in a good place in either situation.
@Andrew, Im going to be in Atlanta Thursday night sometime 8)
-
Energy for work regenerates as matter biodegrades.
No it doesn't. It is possible to get local increases in available energy (that is, a local decrease in entropy) in an open system such as the earth, but this is always at the cost of a greater increase in the total entropy of the universe. Nothing can decrease the total entropy of the universe (i.e. regenerate energy available for work). If you know of a way to do this, I would urge you to construct a perpetual motion machine and sell it on ebay for a billion squillion dollars ;-)
We have obviously seen huge reductions in energy for work over the past few centuries due to our overly huge population and petroleum fueled machines. Before this very little non living energy was used for anything, so it could have always been here, and not even be necessary to use.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is not an extrapolation of observed human fuel consumption. That has little to do with it. The 2nd law is the result of experimental observation of fundamental natural processes. Even without humans, heat still flows from hot bodies to colder bodies, if the universe is infinitely old, all bodies in the universe would be of uniform temperature, all stars would be burned out, all radioative atoms would have decayed, the universe would be dead (as Andrew defined the term). Entropy would be a maximum, there would be no energy available for work.
Living energy or energy used by living organisms such as plants animals fish etc works on the circle system. As we have seen ecological breakdown these circles are being destroyed causing exinction, however i dont see that as an ending to the overall universe.
These system do not perpetually cycle. Living organisms survive because the earth is an open system with outside energy input (such as the sun). With time, the sun would burn out and these cycles would cease.
We know light can be used as a form of energy. I cant be sure of the actual cycle of anything non living though due to the fact that my lifespan is such a minute fraction of existance compared to these energy sources.
You can be sure that no such cycle exists, because of thermodynamics ;-)
-Kev
-
I agree with all the above points basically. I just cant imagine a set beginning in time. Whatever the real answer is im sure it is amazing. Id love it if religion really was correct, and i have a due amount of faith that there is very likely something out there that initiated everything, but im equally worried it isnt and dont want to spend my whole life worshipping and trying to please a god who may not be there, hopefully being a good person with positive intentions will always keep me in a good place in either situation.
@Andrew, Im going to be in Atlanta Thursday night sometime 8)
It doesn't matter what you can immagine, only what can actually occur. I can immagine infinity, but it still exists.
This isn't a proof for God, BTW. It is a proof that believing in an unmoved mover is crequired under our current scientific theories. That unmoved mover does NOT have to be a sentient God.
Oh yeah? Atl? YOU should look up Jason!
edit @ Kev - well, the saving grace of the universe used to be that we believed gravity "redistributed" energy back into potential energy with the big crunch. So thermodynamics didn't eliminate the cyclical universe until the gravity driven big crunch fell out of favor.
-
edit @ Kev - well, the saving grace of the universe used to be that we believed gravity "redistributed" energy back into potential energy with the big crunch. So thermodynamics didn't eliminate the cyclical universe until the gravity driven big crunch fell out of favor.
Thermodynamics has always eliminated the possibility of a bing bang/big crunch cyclic universe. It's just that big bang theorists maintained by faith that it somehow didn't apply to them. The idea that gravity could somehow decrease the entropy of the universe is not thermodynamically possible. The laws of thermodynamics are not and never were subject to the favour of big bang theorists.
This attitude is typical of materialist saturated "science". Chemical evolution (biogenesis) currently suffers the same thermodynamic problems, evolutionists still maintain by faith that biogenesis is possible in spite of the actual science.
Hehe. Just when I thought me and you weren't actually going to argue in a religion thread :)
-Kev
-
edit @ Kev - well, the saving grace of the universe used to be that we believed gravity "redistributed" energy back into potential energy with the big crunch. So thermodynamics didn't eliminate the cyclical universe until the gravity driven big crunch fell out of favor.
Thermodynamics has always eliminated the possibility of a bing bang/big crunch cyclic universe. It's just that big bang theorists maintained by faith that it somehow didn't apply to them. The idea that gravity could somehow decrease the entropy of the universe is not thermodynamically possible. The laws of thermodynamics are not and never were subject to the favour of big bang theorists.
This attitude is typical of materialist saturated "science". Chemical evolution (biogenesis) currently suffers the same thermodynamic problems, evolutionists still maintain by faith that biogenesis is possible in spite of the actual science.
Hehe. Just when I though me and you were actually not going to argue in a religion thread :)
-Kev
Physics is not my forte, but I was under the impression that gravity was some power that operated outside of the normal laws of energy because it was an actual warp in space (kinda like a hill in reality created by mass) therefore the theory said it used the potential energy it creates to squish everything together really small (so the big bang could occur) and all that flew just fine with thermodynamics?
Again, I haven't had basic physics since HS (10 years ago) and what i know of thermodynamics I know from reading books and arguing with my ChemE roomate in college. So if you tell me I'm wrong, I'm gonna take your word for it.
As for biogenesis and evolutiong having a thermo problem... *pokes Kev in the eyes*
-
Physics is not my forte, but I was under the impression that gravity was some power that operated outside of the normal laws of energy because it was an actual warp in space (kinda like a hill in reality created by mass) therefore the theory said it used the potential energy it creates to squish everything together really small (so the big bang could occur) and all that flew just fine with thermodynamics?
Again, I haven't had basic physics since HS (10 years ago) and what i know of thermodynamics I know from reading books and arguing with my ChemE roomate in college. So if you tell me I'm wrong, I'm gonna take your word for it.
Even in this case, the thermodynamic problem for the oscillating universe is that each cycle consumes more available energy than the last (by hydrogen burning in stars and proton decay) That is, each cycle produces more entropy than the last cycle. So each sucessive cycle is longer (in duration) and larger (in radius) than the last. Looking into the past with this in mind, we can conclude that even the cyclic universe still requires a starting point (although no end is required).
I don't pretend to understand all the details of the particle physics myself, so you shouldn't really take my word for it. The original paper is available online. It's been around since '81 and I'm not aware of any significant challenges to the physics (not that anybody is interested in defending cyclic universes anymore).
Effects of Proton Decay on the Cosmological Future (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?1982ApJ...252....1D) (page 7 - 9)
See also Physical Processes Near Cosmological Singularities (http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1973ARA%26A..11..387N) (page 401, 402)
There's some light bedtime reading if ever I saw it :-?
As for biogenesis and evolutiong having a thermo problem... *pokes Kev in the eyes*
Arrgh, you win! Biogenesis is possible. Shame on you for taking advantage of my Christian meekness ;-)
-Kev
-
and they said the internet made you stupid 8O .
*is confused*
-
and they said the internet made you stupid 8O .
*is confused*
LOL
-
oil which we burn for energy is naturally created through the ecological breakdown of substances, it isnt produced at a very fast rate but it does produce
It doesnt matter what i see as possible however what i see is possible is what i choose to believe. I dont propose that any of my ideas are correct, i just feel i have justification to believe that the unmoved mover is only time in recognition to the existance of the universe which i believe has no beginning or end.
-
oil which we burn for energy is naturally created through the ecological breakdown of substances, it isnt produced at a very fast rate but it does produce
But the oil is not formed for free. The process which forms oil would use more energy as input than it produces as output. The organic "debris" which are believed to be the source material for oil certainly exhausted plenty of available energy during their formation. An inorganic option for oil formation is that oil is formed by igneous activity near the centre of the earth. Again, plenty of energy is exhausted in this heat transfer. I just looked these two up, there are probably more oil formation theories out there, but I bet none of them involve getting more energy as output than as input. If they had, geologists would have abandoned the theories as obsurd.
It doesnt matter what i see as possible however what i see is possible is what i choose to believe. I dont propose that any of my ideas are correct, i just feel i have justification to believe that the unmoved mover is only time in recognition to the existance of the universe which i believe has no beginning or end.
Agreed. You are certainly permitted to believe whatever you like.
-Kev
-
The energy process is one which is natural though. Im pretty sure we can agree no one came out and made oil. I think its possible it is created through ecologocal breakdown and pressure, which are forces generated through light, underground earth movement (rocks, water), and gravity. None of these energy sources require human effort. Of course like i said we use it way faster than it is made no matter how you put it so veritably unless we find another source of natural energy we are screwed.
-
First off, I don't care if God exist. He may or may not but I don't care. Next, do animals go to heaven? Do they believe in God? I think the dinosaurs believed in God. They believe that the world would end and God would come and take all believers to Him. So they all died when God came to get them. I don't want to go to heaven with dinosaurs.
Aliens. Do they believe in God? Does God believe in them? Who are the real aliens? Maybe on another planet in another universe they talk about the exist of God and question if we ,their aleins, exist or believe in God. All this assuming life does exist beyond us. Do they go to the same heaven we do? That would be nice.
What am I saying? Nothing, and I don't care. I'm just going to have fun while I'm still living; God or no God.
-
The energy process is one which is natural though. Im pretty sure we can agree no one came out and made oil. I think its possible it is created through ecologocal breakdown and pressure, which are forces generated through light, underground earth movement (rocks, water), and gravity. None of these energy sources require human effort. Of course like i said we use it way faster than it is made no matter how you put it so veritably unless we find another source of natural energy we are screwed.
I don't understand the point.
What Kev is saying is that yes, these energy sources are created by processes that do not require human effort. But they still require energy.
Energy is not CREATED in oil. Energy is just stored. But slowly energy capable of doing work is dispersed across the universe. Energy is reintroduced to our eco system thanks to things like the sun and the earth's naturally hot core and moving plates, but eventually those things will consume all their available energy as well.
Dammit, this is depressing.
BTW @ Kev, I understand what you are saying about the big bang/big crunch shedding energy now. And yeah, that makes sense. If a perpetual motion machine is impossible on a small scale, why would I think it would be possible on a LARGE scale? Duh.
-
The energy process is one which is natural though. Im pretty sure we can agree no one came out and made oil. I think its possible it is created through ecologocal breakdown and pressure, which are forces generated through light, underground earth movement (rocks, water), and gravity. None of these energy sources require human effort. Of course like i said we use it way faster than it is made no matter how you put it so veritably unless we find another source of natural energy we are screwed.
I don't understand the point.
What Kev is saying is that yes, these energy sources are created by processes that do not require human effort. But they still require energy.
Energy is not CREATED in oil. Energy is just stored. But slowly energy capable of doing work is dispersed across the universe. Energy is reintroduced to our eco system thanks to things like the sun and the earth's naturally hot core and moving plates, but eventually those things will consume all their available energy as well.
Uh huh. *nods* What he said.
Even if everything you said is correct, it doesn't aid the cause for the infinitely old (causeless) universe. Which is all I care about refuting.
-Kev
-
You dont know it burns out across the entire space system. To act as if the universe we know is the only universe that exists isnt being very open minded. You dont know whats out there, and we should know that science doesnt either
-
You dont know it burns out across the entire space system.
There's nothing to suggest that the laws of thermodynamics aren't universally valid and everything to suggest that they are. If you want to propose that these laws do not apply at all times and in all parts of the universe, then you shoulder the weighty burden of proof.
To act as if the universe we know is the only universe that exists isnt being very open minded.
I didn't say that our's is the only universe (although that's what I believe). I said the universe is an isolated system. If this universe had existed forever, it could not be in it's present state of entropy, it would be at maximum entropy.
Again, you shoulder the burden of explaining how extra universes would help your cause that this universe has existed eternally.
You dont know whats out there, and we should know that science doesnt either
So something transcendent (outside of the universe) maintains our eternal universe from the effects of it's own natural laws? This is very close to my belief that a trancendent creator God wound up (that is, created with low entropy) the universe which is now running down.
You are right, anything outside of our universe is beyond the scope of science. However, your trancendent maintainer must also have existed eternally. Just like my trancendent creator. Keith would not find your idea any more palatable than the idea of God. You simply invoke an unmoved maintainer, which is the same as an unmoved mover.
-Kev
-
You dont know it burns out across the entire space system. To act as if the universe we know is the only universe that exists isnt being very open minded. You dont know whats out there, and we should know that science doesnt either
Blah!
Dude, you just tried to defeat yourself. You invented an unmoved mover... you just didn't call him God.
BTW, now you're just being silly. So maybe it's time to argue about something else.
So, I said something to my dad about the 39 lashes the other day, and he declared that no where does the bible tell us HOW many lashes Jesus got. So I proceed to do my research on the subject, and sure enough he is correct. But 39 lashes WAS the most the Jewish government was aloud to mete out as punishment. But the ROMANS had no such law... and they were the ones who had jesus beaten.
So why did I always learn in Grade School that Jesus got 39 lashes?
-
So, I said something to my dad about the 39 lashes the other day, and he declared that no where does the bible tell us HOW many lashes Jesus got. So I proceed to do my research on the subject, and sure enough he is correct. But 39 lashes WAS the most the Jewish government was aloud to mete out as punishment. But the ROMANS had no such law... and they were the ones who had jesus beaten.
So why did I always learn in Grade School that Jesus got 39 lashes?
It's because the laws of thermodynamics prohibit any more or less that 39 lashes. Oh no wait, it's because your teachers weren't doing their job properly ;-)
-Kev
-
lol yeah i was bored sorry
I dont know anything about the bible really.....How many lashes were there in passion? ;) I mean im sure the movie knows all
-
So, I said something to my dad about the 39 lashes the other day, and he declared that no where does the bible tell us HOW many lashes Jesus got. So I proceed to do my research on the subject, and sure enough he is correct. But 39 lashes WAS the most the Jewish government was aloud to mete out as punishment. But the ROMANS had no such law... and they were the ones who had jesus beaten.
So why did I always learn in Grade School that Jesus got 39 lashes?
It's because the laws of thermodynamics prohibit any more or less that 39 lashes. Oh no wait, it's because your teachers weren't doing their job properly ;-)
-Kev
Hmmm... interesting theory. Gradeschool religious teachers as FALLIBLE. Hadn't previously considered this option.....
-
Ok, here is a question that if anyone here knows the answer to, I'll be seriously impressed.
Why is it that the Catholic church has branded Mary Magdalene a prostitute even though nothing in scripture supports that?
-
I LOVE YOU SO MUCH.
OMG, YOU HAVE NO CLUE HOW MUCH I FUCKING LOVE YOU FOR SAYING (ASKING) THAT, WILL.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I AM NOT KIDDING EITHER. You're absoLUTELY right, in asking that. O_o There's no reason why they'd say she was a porstitute. I mean, nothing says that's her who was caught in adultery - Even if it was, it was ONE act of adultery, nothing says the lady who was caught had committed adultery before. I get into arguments about this, with people A L L L L L L L the time. You don't even know.
Mary Magdalene was my Confirmation name. It pisses me off when people dis my G, know what I'm sayin'?
-
You'll probably hate me when the answer to my question is posted. It irks lots of Christians.
-
huijk8uj
I typed that with my head. :) What is the answer? Do you know? Were you just trying to trick Cecilia the Johnson into saying what she really felt?!
-
Mary wrote the Gospel attributed to John. It was later edited to hide it's original author. According to many ancient witnesses, Mary was a major leader in the early Christian community. After her death, her male successors in the church were embarassed that a woman lead the movement in the past. They attempted to discredit her through slander and libel.
Now for the most shocking part. Mary was most likely the "disciple that Jesus loved." It is quite possible that she was the wife of Jesus.
And no, I do not subscribe to Gnosticism.
-
The Da Vinci Code is the shiznat.
I've tried to explain that Mary being John or vice versa thing to people but they're like . . . blah.
And also - It is possible that she could've been the wife of Jesus, and people bring that up all the time. They also bring up, "Oh, she and Jesus were in love," or "He loved her," and "She lived Him," but does it fucking matter? I try to explain! I say, ALL THE TIME, Christ was a man, just like everyone. He felt just like any other of mankind. He felt throughout His crucifixion. What's so wrong with His having feelings for a woman?
They'll never understand. You know?
-
The Da Vinci Code is the shiznat.
Never read it. Somehow related? Dang.. I need to read it now that you tell me it's related to what I've been researching lately.
-
*runs around screaming "heretics!"*
-
Satan - Herself - is calling US heretics? Hypocrite. And there's nothing wrong with Mary Magdalene - SIMON PETER! Why don't ya just go on and DENY CHRIST.
I don't know. I'mfuckinretarded.
BUT! Will - Yes, it basically says everything you just said, about the Gospel according to John, the men of the Church, etc.
-
Mary wrote the Gospel attributed to John. It was later edited to hide it's original author. According to many ancient witnesses, Mary was a major leader in the early Christian community. After her death, her male successors in the church were embarassed that a woman lead the movement in the past. They attempted to discredit her through slander and libel.
Now for the most shocking part. Mary was most likely the "disciple that Jesus loved." It is quite possible that she was the wife of Jesus.
And no, I do not subscribe to Gnosticism.
Can i ask what your sources are for that? I don't doubt that its true (well...actually i kind of do), i'd just like to know where that information comes from.
-
The sources are early extrabiblical documents which were decried by many of the church fathers as Gnoistic, even though they were silent on theology. Many of them are contemporary with the Pauline letters.
If you really wanna look into this, I would start with this paper (http://www.beloveddisciple.org/).
In the end, the theory is certainly a plausable one, but it would be impossible to know for sure. Regardless, I don't believe it changes any theology so it isn't important to me besides providing an interesting subject to read on.
-
The Da Vinci Code is the shiznat.
Never read it. Somehow related?
Hardly. It's a work of fiction, a murder mystery. The only link between what you claim and The Da Vinci Code is that, in the story, Mary is the wife of Jesus and that the early church was bigoted.
The book makes the claim (under a heading of "FACT") "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." It's a best seller, thanks in no small part to this publicity stunt.
Edit: Review and critique (http://www.tektonics.org/davincicrude.htm)
Edit2: I realise that my first line implies that I think Will's claim is factual. Just FTR, I don't think that.
-Kev
-
Heretics!
*still running around and screaming*
-
Mute.
-
Dang.. reading a bit more. Whohee! I'm affiliated with the Templars. Never knew they did all the tweaky stuff that this novel alleges. Gospels in the scrolls at Qumran? LOL.
I still believe in my theory. However, that book will only serve to discredit it.
-
I am so stupid.
I have no clue about anything you just said.
*smiles and pretends she didn't say that and that she knows what's going on*
-
Ok, here is a question that if anyone here knows the answer to, I'll be seriously impressed.
Why is it that the Catholic church has branded Mary Magdalene a prostitute even though nothing in scripture supports that?
Because the bible is not always clear on WHICH Mary it is refering to. The only way your notions of Mary Magdalene are accurate is if we assume that there were three or four different mary's throughout the bible instead of just assuming there were two.
For example, John's Gospel mentions a "Mary" washing jesus feet with oils in the week or so before his death (The famous Judas speech about wasting money on Jesus that could have been given to the poor), and in a VERY similar account Luke (7:37) describes a VERY similar sceene and refers to the woman as a 'sinner'. Also, it has been suggested that no unmarried woman outside of a prostitute would be able to purchase expensive oils such as those.
Some say this was not Mary Magdelene but Martha's sister, and there is good evidence that they were 2 seperate people. But I am still showing the reference here to show what others would argue that the two are the same Mary.
In luke 8:2 there is talk of evil spirits leaving Mary's body (clearly a sign of former sins) and there are several references that I cannot find now of religious leaders objecting to Jesus associating with women like her.
I also read an account that mentions that "Magdelene", according to tradition, likely refered to the way she wore her hair (curled). And that it refered to a style that the Talmud refers to as being a sign of a prostitute.
I think what is important is that Mary WAS a sinner before Jesus came. This much is made VERY clear. And that Jesus freed her from her sins and she became a follower of Jesus. What the exact nature of her sins WERE isn't particularly important.
Now there IS excellent record of the things Mary did AFTER Jesus' death. I don't even think the old school Catholics deny this. Mary WAS a missionary and WAS one of Jesus' closest followers as is evident by her involvement during and shortly after his death.
-
. . . moved to France!
(one of my favourite theories)
And, quite off the subject here, Andrew, but, since it's pretty close to being directly across the street of your high school . . . You may not have even said it, I don't know. But . . . How do you pronounce Thruston? (If you've had to make a reference to it.)
-
. . . moved to France!
(one of my favourite theories)
And, quite off the subject here, Andrew, but, since it's pretty close to being directly across the street of your high school . . . You may not have even said it, I don't know. But . . . How do you pronounce Thruston? (If you've had to make a reference to it.)
Indeed.
And WTF is Thruston? It's across from St X?
-
Okay, you don't know - And THIS ruins my day. You never look at street signs? I'm sure you've driven down it before; it's that street (forgot to mention that :oops:), right next to George Rogers'. But you don't know what it is, so it doesn't matter.
-
Okay, you don't know - And THIS ruins my day. You never look at street signs? I'm sure you've driven down it before; it's that street (forgot to mention that :oops:), right next to George Rogers'. But you don't know what it is, so it doesn't matter.
Nope. I know the street you are talking about.... but I never bothered to read the sign. I used to park back there! :)
-
Look at that! lol If it ever DOES come up in conversation (? because it always does ;)), you need to make SURE you say "THRR-stin," rather than the latter day "THRUH-stin."
That's all. :D
-
Some say this was not Mary Magdelene but Martha's sister, and there is good evidence that they were 2 seperate people. But I am still showing the reference here to show what others would argue that the two are the same Mary.
Fair enough. I do believe that this Mary was the sister of Martha.
I also read an account that mentions that "Magdelene", according to tradition, likely refered to the way she wore her hair (curled). And that it refered to a style that the Talmud refers to as being a sign of a prostitute.
Then the account you read was wrong. Mary Magdalene means "Mary of Magdala," which is a small town on Lake Tiberius.
Now there IS excellent record of the things Mary did AFTER Jesus' death. I don't even think the old school Catholics deny this. Mary WAS a missionary and WAS one of Jesus' closest followers as is evident by her involvement during and shortly after his death.
All the detailed records I have seen of Mary's ministry are extrabiblical.
-
Fair enough. I do believe that this Mary was the sister of Martha.
Right. It was. But there are a lot of accounts that argue that these two are the same person. In other words, Martha's sister Mary WAS Mary Magdelene. From a personality and logical story flow, this makes sense. You assume the two are the same person it doesn't create any logical flaws. But I don't believe there is anything beyond circumstantial and faith evidence frot his.
Then the account you read was wrong. Mary Magdalene means "Mary of Magdala," which is a small town on Lake Tiberius.
I have no opinion on this, other than to say that there are a number of names like that in the bible that we always assumed were mentions of PLACES that there is no historical record of having ever existed. So do you KNOW that Magdala was a place?
All the detailed records I have seen of Mary's ministry are extrabiblical.
Right. The Catholic church accepts other sources than the Bible when it comes to historical records. All I know is that my Catholic priests growing up always taught that Mary continued to be active in the Church with the apostles after the death of Jesus. I don't know the details of their source for this, be it word of mouth tradition or specific documents.
-
Atheist.
-
I'm Roman Catholic and proud of it! ;)
-
Atheist. I could go on off on a huge rant about my Catholic childhood and whackjob Sunday School teachers and classmates, but I don't want to stir up any drama.
-
i'm still figuring it out.
so far i'm a :
(http://www.stickergiant.com/Merchant2/imgs/450/b7022_450.jpeg)
-
Protestant, superior Methodist :p
Actually, I can't see anything all that different, except we have some Catholic holdovers. Well, from what I remember from Catholic school.
-
Roman Catholic.
-
Same-Roman Catholic
-
i actually luthern.
-
Catholic/Christian-Methodist
-
I'm a very raving athiest.
-
Roman Catholic and proud of it!