So if someone mocked you, would God deliver retribution?
According to the Bible, he did for Elisha, sending two bears to maul 42 children, when they mocked him for being bald. (Kings 2)
Or you could recognise you are insane and the bible is full of shit.
S
science man
Guest
Read the book I keep repeating.
I don't see a difference.crunchy said:
We don't live in those possibilities. Only one train of events is ours, and within it is no static anything, no two dimensional anything, and so forth.crunchy said:
If all the possibilities are imagined as a structure, one can see how time might vanish from the equations - no choices have been made, no events have occurred. But in any given thread of one possible event after another in necessary sequence, any given universe, it reappears, no?
Here's the deal kid. That's one theist's opinion, where the vast majority of scientists working in the field don't agree with his conclusions.
Got that, it's his opinion, it's not science. So no, I don't have to read his book to know it's bullshit.
phlog,
Wrong.
You have have made a reduction, and introduced something impossible (what to speak of complex) by
all accounts, 'something coming nothing'.
Like the title of the thread asks, "....what is your proof"?
jan.
Wrong.
You have have made a reduction, and introduced something impossible (what to speak of complex) by
all accounts, 'something coming nothing'.
Like the title of the thread asks, "....what is your proof"?
jan.
Jan, you're wrong.
Ok; but there is no reason to think that aging would have any impact on the timeline of our own universe. In this respect, the "Creation" is more like a painting of the creator than a movie. From the deity's perspective our universe would just be a static object.
Agreed.
* A god exists outside our universe.
* Our universe (i.e. all of space + each moment of past-present-future) is a single static object relative to god.
* God created our universe and does not interact with it.
This means that:
* God is contained within a "god-environment" minimally with "god-time" (there's actually more and you'll see soon).
* God is a non-static object (life form) and does things in "god-time".
* The structure of our universe is held together by rules of the "god-environment" because god doesn't interact with it.
* God is held together by the rules of the "god-environment".
* God is an immensely dynamic object (life form) and the "god-environment" supports this (making it a very rich environment).
* For god to have changing thoughts/actions from one moment to the next requires movement (whether it be in the *mind* of god or otherwise). Complex movement across "god-time" would require both an application of some form energy and entropy to work. This means that entropy would be a native feature of the "god-environment".
* Entropy ages static objects.
* The structure of our static universe ages.
* Eventually in "god-time" various parts of the static universe (and ultimately the whole) will succumb to the entropy of the "god-environment" and will degrade/corrupt; however, even before that the entropy affect our static universe. There would be points broken/missing functionality.
* God is dependent on the "god-environment"; therefore, it is not omnipotent.
* God has a finite size (it exists outside of our universe that has a finite size). It is not omnipresent.
* God's finite size means it cannot store all information. It is not omniscient.
* Because the "god-environment" supports entropy, god must "eat" or it will die.
* Because god must "eat" to fend off entropy, it has a life cycle. At some point in "god-time", god was born.
* Because god is sapient, it must have intense competition for energy to warrant that type of feature.
* Because god is finite, non-omnipotent, non-omniscient, and non-omnipresent, it will make mistakes.[/QUTE]
Most of the statements are under the assumption that God does indeed experience a "God-time", which is just supposition, and that all the things we know about physics, entropy, and decay as part of our reality would also apply to his - which is also just supposition. Indeed, neither of these assumptions are Biblical, so if the deity we are discussing is the Biblical God, then one must limit their discussion to Biblical descriptors. With that said...
Even if this were all true, mistakes and limitations in the "God-realm" wouldn't necessarily result in a deity that wasn't omnipotent and omnicscient within our own realm.
Incidentally thank you for putting this discussion back on track. I feel like now we are getting to interesting conversation.
S
science man
Guest
well then how come it got mostly five-star ratings on Amazon?
Because marketing people go on and "rate" their own stuff, duh!
Phlog, I've been on this forum for a while, and you really stand out (with a not too distant second by SpiderGoat) as someone who is downright angry and hateful when it comes to discussions of God. Why is that? Pretty much everyone else is capable of having intelligent discourse that doesn't resort to insults and hatemongering, except for you (and SpiderGoat on occassion). Why is that?
We come from a culture where failure to indulge religious myths is considered impolite. I do not subscribe to that practice.
You aren't simply not indulging religious beliefs. You are just being rude. You actually think that is a good thing? Are there other areas where you don't think people have a right to have there own opinions? Is it okay that I like the color red, or are you going to insult me for that too? In short, where do you get off being such a dick? On what planet DO you live that such jackassery is acceptable? And finally, have you ever heard the phrase "you can catch more flies with honey than a shotgun"? Do you realize that your approach will never serve any purpose beyond the dismissal of your perspectives by and mature and rational adult? You aren't just being rude, you're being stupid.
I have no idea what you are talking about, I was never rude. You are welcome to your opinion, but I think the other members and I have been successful in pointing out that there is no logical foundation for your beliefs. That's all I wanted to prove.
Those comments WERE more directed at phlog than you. It just seems there are certains minimums of decorum that are handily ignored on this site, and it confounds me that grown people would have such difficulties.
no i did not. i took a half hit of acid on two occasions while i was in college (which was a long long time ago), and i was rather unimpressed with the effect.
don't you see how ridiculous, and quite frankly stupid, comments like this make you seem?
Yeah, especially for the first time, you have to go whole hog with 1 or 2, otherwise it's a let-down.
