What is your Religion/Affiliation/Religious Affiliation/Etc.

[kev222]

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

[tylor2000]

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

[tylor2000]

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

[Logikal X]

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.

[Logikal X]

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.

[tylor2000]

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. Great fun.

tylor

Edit: I had to take my words out of your quote.....

[Grakthis]

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.

[Grakthis]

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. 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.

[Logikal X]

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.

[Grakthis]

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.

[Logikal X]

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?

[Grakthis]

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.

[Logikal X]

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

[kev222]

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

[Logikal X]

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?