Who made God? One Big Circle.

[Jan Ardena]

It's amusing to see that when it comes to the crunch most theists would ignore god, and yet before that moment spend their entire lives telling everyone else they must obey god.

Quite amusing.

How is this statement connected to my answer?

Jan.

 

[SnakeLord]

How is this statement connected to my answer?

You were asked if you would do a specific thing if god told you to - to which you said you wouldn't. How hard can it have been to figure out?

Who is zues, and in what scripture can he be found?

Again: http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm

Seek and ye shall find.

Of course there's Apollodorus, Hesiod, Pausanias.. Well, you'll find out, or not.

 

[Jan Ardena]

SnakeLord,

You were asked if you would do a specific thing if god told you to - to which you said you wouldn't. How hard can it have been to figure out?

There was more to my response, why didn't you pick up on that?

Seek and ye shall find.

I'll take it you have no answer, but just threw zues in because you felt like it.

Jan.

 

[joepistole]

What is God? If God is the manifestation of this existence, then God exists in the pre-universe. What existed in the pre-universe, infinite potential.

 

[joepistole]

Who created infinate potential? Can infinate potential be created, since it is only potential and not existence?

 

[SnakeLord]

There was more to my response, why didn't you pick up on that?

The post wasn't aimed at me, I merely pointed out something I felt was pertinent.

I'll take it you have no answer, but just threw zues in because you felt like it.

Wow.. Considering I did indeed put an answer, no wait.. 3 answers on my very last post, the uhh post you were responding to.. I can only uhhh.. question whether you need glasses.

 

[Celpha Fiael]

You've made a claim which I find quite offensive, and falls outside of the reasonable radar, unless of course you can back it up. If that book is evidence to back up your claim, then you can easily quote references. This is how debate works.

I believe it was you who said that "we must put sensitivity aside, otherwise there will be no getting to the nitty gritty." What, don't like it when it's your turn? The fact that you openly admit you will not read the book I have provided as "back up" is enough to support my judgement of your intellectual laziness. I've done my part Jan, a debate isn't you constantly on the offensive; you are expected to "back up" your claims to, which include why you aren't being intellectually lazy here. You don't seem to consider that, which is why I wouldn't take your words concerning anything about how a debate should work.

Caring about what truth is, is a pointless endeavour, as is caring about what gravity is. We already agree that "truth is" regardless.

I think this is enough to kill the debate, thanks.

Why not consider them truth, it creates a clearer understanding.

The best reason you've given me for why we should believe the things you do is "why not?"

The responses are getting too long, so some things have to go.

(This is Jan's response to my request to answer all the questions of mine that she's ignored, all of which were pertinent to her points and would require some defense of her views. In one swoop, she has dismissed the understood agreement of point-counterpoint which is what a debate IS, or any responsibility of anything outside what she deems important. It seems her discernment of what not to answer tells her to turn a blind eye to questions that put the focus and pressure on her convictions. Also, her excuse, "responses are getting too long" is horribly betrayed by this and most of her previous responses which are a couple sentences at most. Compare this with the paragraphs that I type to answer her questions, and I think you'll have a fairly accurate microcosm of the strengths of our arguments.)

That article explains nothing, it is more like an exert from a play or movie, than a introduction to the mind of a suicide bomber.

Enough is enough, Jan.

I sat down and typed out long and detailed responses to each of your responses, but in the midst of it realized that we are never going to be able to make any more progress on any of this (I think those who are reading along will see this as well). So I deleted them all, and just threw up these few that I think epitomize your incompatibility with a debate of any kind. I thought you would have something of value to posit, but all you've done is incessantly launch an offensive upon mind-numbingly irrelevant details of my assertions and deny them when I provide the support you demand, all with minimal support or defense of your assertions. I therefore part company from our debate (if you would like to think you've "won", then be my guest), and wish the best of luck to you in your search for what is true. Oh wait, that's right, you don't care about that, you are content enough to sit with just the flowery thought of there being a truth out there somewhere and wait for revelation to shotgun it to you in the face. You will not be hearing from me any more in this thread, something I'm sure you will be glad of.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Celpha Fiael,

I believe it was you who said that "we must put sensitivity aside, otherwise there will be no getting to the nitty gritty." What, don't like it when it's your turn?

If something is offensive, it is offensive, unless you can show how it is based on reasonable judgement. As I suspected all along, you are incapable of such a task with regard to your inflametory accusations.

The fact that you openly admit you will not read the book I have provided as "back up" is enough to support my judgement of your intellectual laziness.

Show me one debate where a whole book is offered as evidence of a simple point, and the oponent is expected to buy, read it from cover to cover, then give an opinion in the same debate.

You don't seem to consider that, which is why I wouldn't take your words concerning anything about how a debate should work.

I get the feeling you wouldn't take my words due to the fact that I have faith in God, so it makes no difference anyway.

The best reason you've given me for why we should believe the things you do is "why not?"

I didn't say it was the best, but it is a very good one.

(This is Jan's response to my request to answer all the questions of mine that she's ignored, all of which were pertinent to her points and would require some defense of her views.

You believe people who have faith in God, are capable of heinous acts because they have faith in God. Nothing is more important than that dangerous idea, plus, based on that, I seriously doubt you understanding of scriptures, and your good intentions (if you have any).

In one swoop, she has dismissed the understood agreement of point-counterpoint which is what a debate IS, or any responsibility of anything outside what she deems important.

In one swoop, Celpha claimed that people who have faith in God, are capable of 911, because they have faith in God.
Big claim. Care to back it up, without throwing in a whole book?
I doubt it very much.

It seems her discernment of what not to answer tells her to turn a blind eye to questions that put the focus and pressure on her convictions.

I still need to know why people who have faith in God are capable of 911 because they have faith in God. You cannot get around that. An explanation would allow me to understand the rest of your points, otherwise I just see another hater.

cheers
Jan.

 

[Learned Hand]

As the creater of the universe, God must clearly have existed before the universe.

Anyway, science does no better in answering your question. The universe was created via the big bang. What caused that and where did the material that exploded into existance come from? Ummmmmmmmm. Errrrrrrr.........

I must completely agree. A true beginning and end are concepts of time created by the human mind to comprehend change. Speaking Platonically, the theory of forms suggest that in nature there is no absolute perfection. Consider a circle. We can all imagine a perfect circle. However, as any mathematician would say, a perfect circle cannot physically exist. Pi continues indefinitely and never repeats, thus indicating that we can get infinitely close to a perfect circle, but never reach it. What is the square root of -4? A mathmatician would say 2i, with "i" referring to imaginary numbers. Point is, both nature and humanity creates that which is helpful to the environment and to understand his environment. Einstein proved that time is relative; there is no beginning or end. If time = change, then evolution exists, but does not solve the mystery of the perfect circle (or square for that matter), which comprehension lies beyond our human logic, and can only be considered God's domain. To any gambling athiest or agnostic I would simply say that gambling on the existence of God gives you far better odds in the end than not believing and saying we're all from some primeval ooze of DNA.

 

[Oli]

However, as any mathematician would say, a perfect circle cannot physically exist. Pi continues indefinitely and never repeats, thus indicating that we can get infinitely close to a perfect circle, but never reach it.

Pi is a concomitant of the circle, not a requirement.
Construct a circle and pi arrives, not: use pi to create a circle.

 

[Jan Ardena]

SnakeLord,

The post wasn't aimed at me, I merely pointed out something I felt was pertinent.

Then why use my quote?

Wow.. Considering I did indeed put an answer, no wait.. 3 answers on my very last post, the uhh post you were responding to.. I can only uhhh.. question whether you need glasses.

Your link provides lists, none of which is entitled "zues".
It okay if you are incapable of answers to my question.
Don't worry.

Jan.