Squire Grooktook
Brain Fusion Recipient
Founding Member
WU Pwn
    
Karma: 34
Offline
Clan: I WALK ALONE AND CHOOSE MY OWN PATH
PSN: Groucho2
Posts: 1988
Hallowed be The Game
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: November 02, 2008, 01:11:30 pm » |
|
Please let be known though that I have no desire to get into a large argument. Last time someone started a thread like this at f5 I got into a TEN PAGE argument with him (I'm dead **** serious). I have no desire to get into that again...Even though I won.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cunning Linguist
|
 |
« Reply #16 on: November 02, 2008, 01:47:52 pm » |
|
No one 'wins' these 'arguments'. Think of it as a discussion. "God does not heal amputee's as doing so would prove his own existance to mankind and thus destroy the meaning and purpose of faith" How do you know this? Personal revelation or divine interpretation? Arguing for God's existence is fine and dandy, arguing that he is sentient puts you on shaky ground, but arguing to know his intentions puts you in space.
|
|
|
|
Squire Grooktook
Brain Fusion Recipient
Founding Member
WU Pwn
    
Karma: 34
Offline
Clan: I WALK ALONE AND CHOOSE MY OWN PATH
PSN: Groucho2
Posts: 1988
Hallowed be The Game
|
 |
« Reply #17 on: November 02, 2008, 01:56:16 pm » |
|
No one 'wins' these 'arguments'. Think of it as a discussion. "God does not heal amputee's as doing so would prove his own existance to mankind and thus destroy the meaning and purpose of faith" How do you know this? Personal revelation or divine interpretation? Arguing for God's existence is fine and dandy, arguing that he is sentient puts you on shaky ground, but arguing to know his intentions puts you in space. Yes, yes I am aware no one can win. I was just joking. You misentrepret me. I do not know that that is why god does not heal amputee's. I came to this conclusion as a logical answer to a question. Their could be a differant reason. Or their could be no God at all. But this is the logical answer I have come too through the power of my own mind. I do not believe that arguing that God is sentient puts one on "shaky ground". And I do not see why it should. Their is no proof of the existance of God so saying one theory is inferior to another theory is somewhat unfounded, unless their is direct evidence to the contrary to that theory. And their does not seem to be any substansial evidence to the contrary of "God is sentient". I believe I have evidence for a sentient God. I do not claim to know his inntentions. I believe in God because I believe I have found evidence for his existance. That is all their is to it.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 02, 2008, 01:58:15 pm by Squire Grooktook »
|
Report Spam
Logged
|
|
|
|
OhioLawyer
Administrator
WU Master
Karma: 9003
Offline
Clan: The Fatal Five
Posts: 8207
Romans 5:8
|
 |
« Reply #18 on: November 02, 2008, 02:15:26 pm » |
|
@ turbo, I wasn't talking to you but handy in my post (although it may or may not be applicable) and your assumption that God COULD have used the big bang does in fact negate your statement that you believe the genesis account because they are in direct conflict.
@ AG, I never understood agnosticism. I mean you conlcude that one can never PROVE the assumptions of religion so you choose not to espouse any belief. But not believing in one side or the other is in fact believing something whether you like to admit it or not. You are basically saying that you believe there are no consequences to what you believe and that because you can't prove which is right it doesn't matter which you believe. But that neglects to recognize the possibility that even though one side may not be more "proveable" than the other that one still isn't correct. And if one is correct, then there will be consequences for not believing that side. Right? And if that is so, then aren't you putting yourself in the worst possible position by not taking a side? You leave yourself with no chance of being right. Not logical if you ask me.
@ Squire, doesn't it seem pretty lame of yourself to defer to scientists' conclusions just because you think they are the "smartest" of society? You are basically admitting you can't think for yourself. You also assume I know nothing of the big bang theory in your rebuttal. However it is quite the contrary. I know the arguments that your so called genius scientists rely upon. I just find them based on incorrect assumptions and poor interpretation of the data. And there are many scientists who are just as smart as those you think are so compelling who also see the scientifical fallasies in the data.
|
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
|
|
|
Turboweasle
Administrator
WU Guru
Karma: 228
Offline
PSN: Turboweasle
Posts: 16556
Turboweasle: everyone's favorite speedy rodent
|
 |
« Reply #19 on: November 02, 2008, 02:40:11 pm » |
|
I'll elaborate, Lawyer.
Science states that "Matter cannot be created or destroyed". This is an obvious contradiction to the Big Bang theory. Where did the material that exploded and created the universe come from? If matter cannot be created, how was matter there in the first place? Someone had to place it there- someone who defies human laws. God.
You say that I contradict myself by saying that I believe in Genesis' account while not dismissing the Big Bang altogether. Think about this: Genesis claims that God created the universe in 6 days. However, how do we know what time it really took? God created time in order for his creations (plants, animals, humans) to survive. God is not bound by time; He is time's master- he is in time, through time, around time- He is time.
For the sake of my point, let us say that God created the universe via the Big Bang. He then wants to tell humans how it happened. However, how can a human who has lived maybe 500 years begin to fathom eons of time? How can he begin to undestand the immeasurable length of time that God had existed? Time didn't exist at the beginning of the universe's creation- God created it during the creation of the Earth.
Maybe it took God eons to construct stars. Maybe He instantaneously willed them into being. Maybe a day to God is a millisecond- maybe a day is ten-thousand years. Time exists on Earth only. God had to put time into terms a human mind could understand. A human understands what a day is, but maybe not a lack of time. Maybe the Big Bang (contrary to science's timeframe) did indeed take six days. Maybe it took billions of years. Maybe what we know as a day was, before time began, a billion years.
I hope I explained myself more clearly this time. I guess that's why religion asks of us faith and not understanding.
|
"And I also told the students that, for the sake of humanity's future, I hoped they were all sterile." - Ignatius Reilly. Never mind what your daughter is taught in school; what she remembers is what she has learned from you. Anti-Noob Fortress of Veteraness Council Member ~Turboweasle~ I NEVER squeeze my jubblies, so that stuff wouldn't work for me.
|
|
|
|
Cunning Linguist
|
 |
« Reply #20 on: November 02, 2008, 03:15:21 pm » |
|
@ AG, I never understood agnosticism. I mean you conlcude that one can never PROVE the assumptions of religion so you choose not to espouse any belief. But not believing in one side or the other is in fact believing something whether you like to admit it or not. Arguing that indecision is in fact a decision is hardly more than linguistics. At this point in time, there is evidence supporting both theism and atheism. Until either side comes up with something conclusive, I refrain from supporting either. You are basically saying that you believe there are no consequences to what you believe and that because you can't prove which is right it doesn't matter which you believe. That's not what I said at all. And if one is correct, then there will be consequences for not believing that side. There are no consequences for being a theist if God doesn't exist. This brings us full-circle back to Pascal's Wager. And if that is so, then aren't you putting yourself in the worst possible position by not taking a side? You leave yourself with no chance of being right. Not logical if you ask me. I'm fairly certain everyone in this topic can admit the possibility that they MAY be wrong. Admitting human ignorance is not illogical, it's being reasonable. There is only so much we can know, regardless of what you believe. By making a conclusion and then picking and choosing which evidence you like to support your conclusion, you are being intellectually dishonest. I recognize that each side has supporting evidence and that either side could be right. I have my personal beliefs and I'm pretty sure they're fairly obvious (see sig for details), but I do not claim to know them. If you want to be honest with yourself, you will admit that you could be wrong and as I detailed earlier, for each thing you claim to know about 'God', the worse your chances are of being right. Until there is decisive proof, I choose to refrain from making a decision. That is the most logically sound decision.
|
|
|
|
|
Handass
|
 |
« Reply #21 on: November 02, 2008, 04:12:57 pm » |
|
lets spice this up with a though of Stephen Colbert's: You know the story of the Tampa Bay Rays? How then went from 9 losing seasons to winning their division and then going on to the World series? Wanna know why this happened? It is because though they had been the Tampa Bay DEVIL Rays up until this year, they decided to denounce Satan and accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior.
and to finish this statement off why dont i pull another Colbert quote: JESUS NUMBER ONE!!! JESUS NUMBER ONE!!! EAT IT BUDDA!!!...because you seem to have eaten everything else
|
 Handy <3
I squeeze my jubblies... silly.
I'm ok with jubblies.
 
|
|
|
MrPillow
WiiUnite's Fluffifier
WU Pwn
  
Karma: 62
Offline
Clan: Wii Failures
PSN: MrPillow92
Posts: 2944
STR8 SLAMMIN'
|
 |
« Reply #22 on: November 02, 2008, 04:23:44 pm » |
|
I could type my views, but ya'll would be lost. Maybe not a select few people, but most would be.
*y'all ok sorry plz continue
|
TIGER STYLE: Wii'Nite clan ain't nuthin' to **** with \\//\\// <== My dubayew 
|
|
|
OhioLawyer
Administrator
WU Master
Karma: 9003
Offline
Clan: The Fatal Five
Posts: 8207
Romans 5:8
|
 |
« Reply #23 on: November 02, 2008, 04:37:51 pm » |
|
turbo, the theory you put forth does in fact contradict the genesis account. It clearly states at the end of each day of creation that "the morning and the evening were the first (varies depending on the day) of creation." How does that allow for your gap theory of longer than 24 hour days?
|
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
|
|
|
Turboweasle
Administrator
WU Guru
Karma: 228
Offline
PSN: Turboweasle
Posts: 16556
Turboweasle: everyone's favorite speedy rodent
|
 |
« Reply #24 on: November 02, 2008, 04:53:11 pm » |
|
....
Nevermind. I guess I can't really explain it well enough.
|
"And I also told the students that, for the sake of humanity's future, I hoped they were all sterile." - Ignatius Reilly. Never mind what your daughter is taught in school; what she remembers is what she has learned from you. Anti-Noob Fortress of Veteraness Council Member ~Turboweasle~ I NEVER squeeze my jubblies, so that stuff wouldn't work for me.
|
|
|
GeezyG
Founding Member
WU Elite
    
Karma: 0
Offline
Clan: SoL fo lyfe
PSN: E
Xbox Live: E
Posts: 292
|
 |
« Reply #25 on: November 02, 2008, 05:54:45 pm » |
|
You say that I contradict myself by saying that I believe in Genesis' account while not dismissing the Big Bang altogether. Think about this: Genesis claims that God created the universe in 6 days. However, how do we know what time it really took? God created time in order for his creations (plants, animals, humans) to survive. God is not bound by time; He is time's master- he is in time, through time, around time- He is time.
i work with a guy named genesis go on
|
|
|
|
OhioLawyer
Administrator
WU Master
Karma: 9003
Offline
Clan: The Fatal Five
Posts: 8207
Romans 5:8
|
 |
« Reply #26 on: November 03, 2008, 06:43:24 am » |
|
Math, under your theory you still run into the problem that the original universe that collapsed had to have also had a start. Your argument causes a cyclical paradox that can never be solved. If you find that more compelling than an actual beginning, more power to you. I just find it funny that scientists put forth their views as if they are set in stone yet when questioned they either give an impossible answer (like you did) or they simply say "I don't know" when asked where the original matter came from. I have seen it in interview after interview with top scientists. How can you espouse a theory so strongly and put it forth as scientific fact when your ultimate answer is "I don't know?"
|
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
|
|
|
|
insomniac
|
 |
« Reply #27 on: November 03, 2008, 10:34:38 pm » |
|
Wow...I'm surprised this thread got as much attention as it did... And it has a lot of text to read... 
|
Gamertags: SUBSTANCExABUSE, shamW0WWW OLD GAMERTAG RECOVERED! Add them both.
|
|
|
Gift
Why is the rum gone?
Time Out Corner
WU Elite
Karma: 6969
Offline
Clan: AoW/Ao3
PSN: zAnxiety
Xbox Live: xGift
Posts: 429
I'm not Hert88... maybe.
|
 |
« Reply #28 on: November 07, 2008, 09:22:48 pm » |
|
I believe... what ever doesn't kill you simply makes you... stranger.
Original, I know.
|
|
|
|
MessakiNg
the one and only
Global Moderator
WU Pwn
    
Karma: 6
Offline
Clan: WTCLAN
Xbox Live: MessakiN
Posts: 1952
|
 |
« Reply #29 on: November 07, 2008, 10:22:37 pm » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|