## Religious Thread [8] - CLOSED

Message boards : Politics : Religious Thread [8] - CLOSED
Message board moderation

Previous · 1 . . . 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 . . . 52 · Next

AuthorMessage
Sarge
Volunteer tester

Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 11346
Credit: 6,083,451
RAC: 4,081
Message 435015 - Posted: 12 Oct 2006, 7:39:58 UTC - in response to Message 434673.

Demonstrate that 2 + 2 = 4.

Then again, you should have been more specific. Right now my clock says it is 3:36. 13 hours from now, it will read 4:36. So, 3 + 13 = 4 (modulo 12). Similarly, 2 + 2 = 0 (mod 4). The set of integers {0, 1, ..., n - 1} form a group under addition modulo n. Refer to my previous post about group theory. Again, it has been shown that the set of axioms for group theory are logically consistent, etc. ... . Plus, in some cases, group theory is demonstrably applicable to "real-life" situations, like my clock arithmetic example.

I didn't create this and the people who did had little to no agenda except to abstract upon the familiar in order to expand the body of mathematical knowledge.
Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.
ID: 435015 ·
Sarge
Volunteer tester

Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 11346
Credit: 6,083,451
RAC: 4,081
Message 435017 - Posted: 12 Oct 2006, 7:58:23 UTC - in response to Message 435008.

Jeffery, you are not providing proof, you are providing a circular argument that states that the Koran is proof of God because the Koran says it is proof of God.

Good point! This is something I was thinking about adding in the discussion of proof. (Bear with me folks ... I know it is the religious thread, but since some request/demand proof from others, we have to consider what proof really is! As a mathematician, I offer insight from that area b/c it is one of the few areas where proof has been systematized.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
An axiom is a sentence or proposition that is not proved or demonstrated and is considered as obvious or as an initial necessary consensus for the theory building or acceptation. Therefore, it is taken for granted as true, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferencing other truths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiomatic_system
In mathematics, an axiomatic system is any set of axioms from which some or all axioms can be used in conjunction to logically derive theorems.

Properties
An axiomatic system is said to be consistent if it lacks contradiction, i.e. the ability to derive both a statement and its negation from the system's axioms.

In an axiomatic system, an axiom is called independent if it is not a theorem that can be derived from other axioms in the system. A system will be called independent if each of its underlying axioms is independent.

Axiomatic method
The axiomatic method is often discussed as if it were a unitary approach, or uniform procedure. With the example of Euclid to appeal to, it was indeed treated that way for many centuries: up until the beginning of the nineteenth century it was generally assumed, in European mathematics and philosophy (for example in Spinoza's work) that the heritage of Greek mathematics represented the highest standard of intellectual finish (development more geometrico, in the style of the geometers).

This traditional approach, in which axioms were supposed to be self-evident and so indisputable, was swept away during the course of the nineteenth century, by the development of Non-Euclidean geometry, the foundations of real analysis, Cantor's set theory and Frege's work on foundations, and Hilbert's 'new' use of axiomatic method as a research tool. For example, group theory was first put on an axiomatic basis towards the end of that century. Once the axioms were clarified (that inverse elements should be required, for example), the subject could proceed autonomously, without reference to the transformation group origins of those studies.

Therefore, there are at least three 'modes' of axiomatic method current in mathematics, and in the fields it influences. In caricature, possible attitudes are:

1. Accept my axioms and you must accept their consequences;
2. I reject one of your axioms and accept extra models;
3. My set of axioms defines a research programme.

The first case is the classic deductive method. The second goes by the slogan be wise, generalise; it may go along with the assumption that concepts can or should be expressed at some intrinsic 'natural level of generality'. The third was very prominent in the mathematics of the twentieth century, in particular in subjects based around homological algebra.

It is easy to see that the axiomatic method has limitations outside mathematics. For example, in political philosophy axioms that lead to unacceptable conclusions are likely to be rejected wholesale; so that no one really assents to version 1 above.

================================================================================
There you have it! We begin with a small set of undefined terms, then define as many terms as we like, followed by a small set of assumptions (axioms) and then derive everything else ... formalizing the results deductively.

Again, the reason for the undefined terms is because mathematicians will not accept circular reasoning. To attempt to define everything and similarly prove everything about the terms we've defined leads to circular reasoning.

Note: the examples I have provided here and in other posts are also not proofs. I am providing several examples. Talk to any mathematician, or pick up a textbook of any flavor from the secondary level on. They'll back me up. And that is still not proof. Whether you like it or not, it is a convention that mathematicians have agreed upon as the best way to safely proceed in deriving results.

P.S. -
Assumptions are prone to error.

Again, in mathematics, there is no self-evidence of assumptions, there may be no immediately applicable situation in the physical world perceive, and the main things we care about are consistency (not having a set axioms that lead to contradictory results within ONE PARTICULAR axiomatic system) and independence (keep the set of assumptions small ... do not have an axiom that can be deductively proved using other axioms).
Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.
ID: 435017 ·
Es99
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10872
Credit: 350,274
RAC: 110
Message 435031 - Posted: 12 Oct 2006, 9:05:19 UTC - in response to Message 434995.

But I fully expect you to ignore whatever doesn't fit into your little fantasy world.

You want proof? Here's your proof...

GOD said that the Qur'an was His book:
4:82 Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.

GOD said that YOU aren't smart enough to create a book like it:
10:37 This Qur'an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah; on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book âˆ’ wherein there is no doubt âˆ’ from the Lord of the worlds.

GOD challenged YOU to create a book like it:
10:38 Or do they say, "He forged it"? say: "Bring then a Sura like unto it, and call (to your aid) anyone you can besides Allah, if it be ye speak the truth!"

GOD said that YOU can't create a book like it no matter how much help you get:
17:88 Say: "If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support.

For almost 2,000 years people have tried to create a book like it but they have all failed. Are YOU up for the challenge? I'd sure like to see it! Don't forget to include the poetry and mathematical correlations... And when you're finished, you can write the Torah and the Gospels too... And make sure that you use the proper languages, Hebrew, Greek, and Arabic, I guess you'll have to learn them first... Hey, if someone could do it 2,000 years ago, then surely YOU can do it today using all our modern technology... Come on, show us that YOU can do something, anything, other than being a complete and total !@#\$%&*... ;)

I don't know Jeffrey, I've read quite a few books that are better than the Bible or Quran...and with out all the continuity errors either.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 435031 ·
Sarge
Volunteer tester

Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 11346
Credit: 6,083,451
RAC: 4,081
Message 435100 - Posted: 12 Oct 2006, 13:01:43 UTC - in response to Message 422488.

Don't we have to wonder why religion exists in the fIrst place? What particular need was served by the worship of whichever god or gods, (notice the lower case!) Control of the weather, hunting, fire etc., etc., etc. The list is endless, WE invented god, we have such a fear of non-being that we have to have something to explain our existence - OK guys, we either die and go on to our great reward, or we we just die! Who came back (exclusive of jesus) and said there was a beter place to go to! Proof please!

Are some religious b/c of fear? Have some religious leaders played on that fear? Yes. But, can you prove that to me? What is proof?

What is fear? Can you prove to me any emotion exists? That mental processes exist? You would not be able to convince a behavioral psychologist.
Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.
ID: 435100 ·
Jeffrey

Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 435127 - Posted: 12 Oct 2006, 14:14:17 UTC - in response to Message 435008.

Jeffery, you are not providing proof

While what I've stated was a basis for my beliefs and is proof enough for me, I was really just trying to make a point in a humorous kinda way... Which was:

Until it can be duplicated by man, It must have come from God... ;)
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 435127 ·
Chuck

Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 511
Credit: 532,682
RAC: 0
Message 435135 - Posted: 12 Oct 2006, 14:25:28 UTC

there aren't any faults or contradictions found in the Holy Books

Here we go again. As if myself and others haven't proven this wrong dozens of times already. And jeffrey just goes on ignoring the proof. I won't bother cutting and pasting the same proofs yet again, I'll just forward to a link that demonstrates the ignorance, stupidity, and utterly WRONG conclusions in the bible (for one).

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0101/sciencequiz.html This is my favorite. It shows the utterly WRONG 'facts' that people in this modern day and age still believe. Just because it's written in their 'holy' book.

And for sure, almost any book at all is far better than either the bible, or the koran. Oasis in Space for one. COsmos for another. Demon Haunted World for a third, jeffo. Read them yet? You asked for the proof.

But of course,
Jeffery, you are not providing proof, you are providing a circular argument
and we go around and around and around again, with jeffrey never learning at all. http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm

As for Knightmare, I don't know why I bother answering you, either. You can't understand anything that doesn't fit into your little world either. I told you I don't feel things are right or wrong. I am lead to a conclusion by FACTS. NOT by feelings, estimations, or what I think should be right. Facts speak for themselves. They don't need anyone subjectively judging them. It simply shows you cannot understand this, although it's very easy to demonstrate that feeling 2+2=4 is right or wrong is irrelevant to the fact that (insert simple child tone here) when you have 2 apples, and I
give you 2 more apples, you have FOUR apples!!! Maybe if you go slam your head against a wall a few times you *might* understand. Reading hasn't helped you.

Sarge 2 sure has posted alot for someone who hasn't got the time - regardless, I had looked up axiom on Wikipedia the other day. I was staggered that the mathematical community bases anything at all on an assumption. I had a Calculus professor, Novotny, in College who made it a point that he couldn't present us with any equation at all without working it out from the barest of principles to proove it correct. Nothing he gave us was possibly full of merde! It all fit into the real world and was provable so far as I understood it. (I could have been mistaken).

Perhaps the axiom you might be talking about is the set of modifications you make to the math you are using? In other words, the 'clock arithmetic' you present is under a different set of rules than the basic 'apples for children'. We should not need to qualify the basic one, but we do need to qualify the clock one, otherwise, we run under a different set of assumptions about how the math is carried out. If this is the case (As I am NOT anywhere near a doctorate in Maths), then I will accept that operational definition of 'assumption'.

btw, I immediately saw that
Define straight for me.
is easily defined and can be PROVEN: the shortest distance between two points. If you want to try and prove me wrong by modifying or bending the surface you're talking about, realize that you're pulling a philosopher's stunts just to be a smart-ass: if you want to change the real-world conditions, then we have to re-answer for that new special case.

We should all realize that proof is demonstrably consistent evidence. A yahoo would go around claiming that one day, somehwere, an apple might fall UP into the sky, so nothing can really be prooven. (This is different from the inane moron who goes on to claim that since Christ walked on water, gravity is therefore disproven. - He is making the error of assumption that a common myth is actually the truth.) If we make the same observation over and over, indeed the particular facet we are examining is not prooven in a strict theoretical sense - but only idiots insist on that. Science is the practice of ever-refining answers. We can be pretty confident that gravity will go on to pull down apples all over the universe until the physics changes for whatever reason. That is proof enough. Only an idiot is utterly suprised to find that a pencil makes a mark on a paper today just as it did yesterday. (Douglas Addams' "ruler of the universe").

Science will one day have an answer for everything. Come back in a few thousand years and see. One would hope that by then, there will be no religious idiots left to retard human growth and evolution. I was born far, far too early.
Never Forget a Friend. Or an Enemy.
ID: 435135 ·
Chuck

Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 511
Credit: 532,682
RAC: 0
Message 435137 - Posted: 12 Oct 2006, 14:31:02 UTC - in response to Message 435127.

Until it can be duplicated by man, It must have come from God... ;)

OOOOhhhhhh, my stars (which ARE real), why do we even waste our time with an abysmally stupid person like this?!?
Never Forget a Friend. Or an Enemy.
ID: 435137 ·
Walla
Volunteer tester

Joined: 14 May 06
Posts: 329
Credit: 177,013
RAC: 0
Message 435164 - Posted: 12 Oct 2006, 16:18:22 UTC - in response to Message 434995.

But I fully expect you to ignore whatever doesn't fit into your little fantasy world.
I
You want proof? Here's your proof...

GOD said that the Qur'an was His book:
4:82 Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.

GOD said that YOU aren't smart enough to create a book like it:
10:37 This Qur'an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah; on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book âˆ’ wherein there is no doubt âˆ’ from the Lord of the worlds.

GOD challenged YOU to create a book like it:
10:38 Or do they say, "He forged it"? say: "Bring then a Sura like unto it, and call (to your aid) anyone you can besides Allah, if it be ye speak the truth!"

GOD said that YOU can't create a book like it no matter how much help you get:
17:88 Say: "If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support.

For almost 2,000 years people have tried to create a book like it but they have all failed. Are YOU up for the challenge? I'd sure like to see it! Don't forget to include the poetry and mathematical correlations... And when you're finished, you can write the Torah and the Gospels too... And make sure that you use the proper languages, Hebrew, Greek, and Arabic, I guess you'll have to learn them first... Hey, if someone could do it 2,000 years ago, then surely YOU can do it today using all our modern technology... Come on, show us that YOU can do something, anything, other than being a complete and total !@#\$%&*... ;)

I suggest that you read the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If it weren't so sarcastic and they wrote it like that on purpose then I say it could easily rival the bible.

As for Sarge I got a news flash for you. There was no big bang. The theory is entirely wrong. Look more into it and you'll see what I am talking about.
ID: 435164 ·
Walla
Volunteer tester

Joined: 14 May 06
Posts: 329
Credit: 177,013
RAC: 0
Message 435169 - Posted: 12 Oct 2006, 16:28:56 UTC

I think we should all worship the stars. I am not even joking. I was thinking about this. What has God given you?? Nothing. I have already proved that there is no need for a creator. Now what have the stars given you? Everything. The atoms in your body came from stars, our star keeps you from freezing to death. It feeds you. It allows you to drive your car and power your house everyday. There are countless things which the stars do for you everyday. I shall call my new religion Cosmoanity.

ID: 435169 ·
Mac Girl.

Joined: 15 Mar 06
Posts: 679
Credit: 15,042
RAC: 0
Message 435185 - Posted: 12 Oct 2006, 17:30:30 UTC

Why I believe there is a God and why he is likely to be an Extraterrestrial...

'The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord they God. In it thoult shalt not do any work...' ( i.e. you will not take the final step with civilization. i.e. the seventh day is when Man will aqcuire the ability to build spacecraft} Exodus, chapter 20, verse 10.
'For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth...and rested on the seventh.'Ex. chap 20. vs 11. {the 'six days' allude to the building of a civilization I believe}
'Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto them any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above. Ex,chap 20. vs 3-4. (You shall not make a copy of my spacecraft).
"Ye shall not make with me gods of silver, neither shall ye make unto you gods of gold.' Exodus, chap 20. vs 23. (You shall not work with metals, for this could lead you to become my technological rivals)'
'...For I the Lord thy God am a jealous god.' (I guard my technology jealously)Ex. chap 20, vs 5.
And the Lord said to Moses, 'Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first...and I will write upon these tables.' Ex. chap 34, vs 1.
'And be ready in the morning and come up...unto Mount Sinai, and present thyself to me in the top of the mount. Ex. chap 34, vs 2.
And when it came to pass, when Moses came down from Mount Sinai...that the skin of his face shone (a kind of radiation maybe?) Ex. chap 34, vs 29.

More later if anyone's interested?
'No one can make you inferior without your consent.'
Eleanor Roosevelt.
ID: 435185 ·
Chuck

Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 511
Credit: 532,682
RAC: 0
Message 435217 - Posted: 12 Oct 2006, 18:41:46 UTC

I have no clue where you get that conclusion. More later?!? You mean you have more entirely unreal non-sequitors???

The errors many people make about the Big Bang is that it had to be started by something, because all we see around is are causes preceding effects. This, however, is an artifact of time, a dimension we travel through. Time is part and parcel of our universe, and if you could step out of our universe, you would also be stepping outside of time. It is correct to say that the universe could 'always' have been here if time is a closed loop. It is incorrect to say 'Oh 'god' started it all' because then it only begs the question of what started your god. If time didn't exist before the universe, then time only began to have relevance with the Big Bang occuring.

The BIG problem is when some people decide that it's all too confusing for their poor little minds, and invent 'god' to explain away all their doubts and mysteries instead of working on finding out what the actual case was and is. I don't suppose for one minute that I will ever see the mystery solved and explained in my lifetime. That is for future generations and much more advanced science. But I don't go turning to the simplistic pablum answer (which is not really an answer at all) that is religion.
Never Forget a Friend. Or an Enemy.
ID: 435217 ·
Jeffrey

Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 435268 - Posted: 12 Oct 2006, 20:24:58 UTC - in response to Message 435217.

I have no clue

Hmm... ;)
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 435268 ·
Knightmare
Volunteer tester

Joined: 16 Aug 04
Posts: 7472
Credit: 94,252
RAC: 0
Message 435303 - Posted: 12 Oct 2006, 21:32:38 UTC

As for Knightmare, I don't know why I bother answering you, either.

Because you simply can't resist my charm and wit?? LOL
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome
ID: 435303 ·
Captain Avatar
Volunteer tester

Joined: 17 May 99
Posts: 15133
Credit: 529,088
RAC: 0
Message 435312 - Posted: 12 Oct 2006, 21:44:44 UTC - in response to Message 435303.

As for Knightmare, I don't know why I bother answering you, either.

Because you simply can't resist my charm and wit?? LOL

ID: 435312 ·
Mac Girl.

Joined: 15 Mar 06
Posts: 679
Credit: 15,042
RAC: 0
Message 435320 - Posted: 12 Oct 2006, 22:01:28 UTC

Yahweh did not want his people, the Israelites, to inter-marry with the Gentiles. He wanted to keep his people special and separate. They were seen as better than their Gentile counterparts, who were only the products of natural evolution. But the Israelites were not. They were designed by a scientist who was the champion of all geneticists everywhere. Yahweh wanted his people to rule the earth. And he wanted them to destroy the Gentile populations, who were genetically inferior in Yahweh's eyes.
'For thou art a holy people to the Lord thy God; [I] have chosen thee to be a special people unto myself, above all the people that are upon the face of the earth.' Deuteronomy. Chap. 7, verse 6.
'The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire; thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them [again the prohibition against metals]nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein...' Deuteronomy. Chap. 7. verse 25.
So we have a warlike God who was into conquest for his own people rather than the God of love that many refer to.

'No one can make you inferior without your consent.'
Eleanor Roosevelt.
ID: 435320 ·
Walla
Volunteer tester

Joined: 14 May 06
Posts: 329
Credit: 177,013
RAC: 0
Message 435330 - Posted: 12 Oct 2006, 22:24:41 UTC

I'm gonna post some quotes too since Jeffrey seems to be doing it alot.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudo-science and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive.

If we long to believe that the stars rise and set for us, that we are the reason there is a Universe, does science do us a disservice in deflating our conceits?

Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere.

Our species needs, and deserves, a citizenry with minds wide awake and a basic understanding of how the world works.

Personally, I would be delighted if there were a life after death, especially if it permitted me to continue to learn about this world and others, if it gave me a chance to discover how history turns out.

Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense.

There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. That's perfectly all right; they're the aperture to finding out what's right. Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny.

Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science?

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people.

Men find happiness neither by means of the body nor through possessions, but through uprightness and wisdom

Many who have not learnt Reason, nevertheless live according to reason

The generous man is he who does not look for a return, but who does good from choice.

In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.

When we begin accepting theories without scientific proof, we must open the window to any theoryâ€¦

The FSM doesnâ€™t care about evil. He accepts those with loose, flimsy morals. He makes us feel good about ourselves, while your â€œgodâ€ is always putting us down. The FSM inspires of to rage against the machine of judeo-christian blasphemy and bask in the warmth of His Spaghetti and Meatballs.

The issue at hand is not whether or not God(s) (whether we are referring to Christ, Yaweh, Shiva, Zues, Homer Simpson, or Aman Ra) exist, nor whether the flying spaghetti monster exists. Gods are constructs. Ideas. We create gods and religions to try and answer the unanswerable questions about life on earth (Why are we here? What lies beyond death? Are we just killing time between birth and death or is there a purpose to life?) because it is very very hard to struggle through life as a human on earth without something to lean on. (or someone to blame for our problems).

1. God exists (premise)
2. God is omnipotent (premise)
3. God is benevolent (premise)
4. Benevolent beings are opposed to all evil. (premise)
5. Benevolent beings will act immediately with no delay. (premise)
6. God is opposed to all evil. (conclusion from 3 and 4)
7. God can eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 2)
1. Whatever end result of suffering, God can bring about by ways which do not include suffering. (conclusion from 2)
2. God has no reason not to eliminate evil (conclusion from 7.1)
3. God has no reason not to act immediately (Conclusion from 5)
8. God will eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 6, 7.2 and 7.3)
9. Evil exists, has existed, and probably will always exist. (premise)
10. Items 8 and 9 are contradictory; therefore, one or more of the premises is false: either God does not exist, or he is not both omnipotent and benevolent or there is a reason why He does not act immediately.

Some food for thought
ID: 435330 ·
Knightmare
Volunteer tester

Joined: 16 Aug 04
Posts: 7472
Credit: 94,252
RAC: 0
Message 435333 - Posted: 12 Oct 2006, 22:26:08 UTC - in response to Message 435312.

As for Knightmare, I don't know why I bother answering you, either.

Because you simply can't resist my charm and wit?? LOL

What'd I ever do to you??? LOL

from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome
ID: 435333 ·
Walla
Volunteer tester

Joined: 14 May 06
Posts: 329
Credit: 177,013
RAC: 0
Message 435340 - Posted: 12 Oct 2006, 22:39:43 UTC

There is one thing which I think we should all agree upon. Whether god exists or not it is not going to affect the way I live my life. I will still help others whenever I can, I am always nice and caring towards others and I have good morals.
This is how I try to live my life. I am nowhere near perfect nor is anybody but I think that we should all aspire to do good things and lend a helping hand to each other whether or not there is an afterlife. For the time being we are all stuck here on this planet and we should work together and help each other.
ID: 435340 ·
Cyrus255

Joined: 6 Oct 06
Posts: 23
Credit: 47
RAC: 0
Message 435350 - Posted: 12 Oct 2006, 22:59:17 UTC - in response to Message 434935.

Let me ask you this then, What created the creator?

The creator CREATED the whole concept of creation you speak of. In order for our universe to exist there must be a universe without decay.

I'm not religious, just a spiritual, neoplatonic monist.

The truth is out there. Or in here. Who left the door open? (my dog comes running back in) There's the truth!

Matchmaking
ID: 435350 ·
Lester

Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 894
Credit: 31,048
RAC: 0
Message 435370 - Posted: 13 Oct 2006, 0:15:41 UTC - in response to Message 435350.

Let me ask you this then, What created the creator?

The creator CREATED the whole concept of creation you speak of. In order for our universe to exist there must be a universe without decay.

I'm not religious, just a spiritual, neoplatonic monist.

I am probably wrong on this, but I think I just read that there is a Catholic ceremony to "re virginize" a person. not joking, serious question
ID: 435370 ·
Previous · 1 . . . 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 . . . 52 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Religious Thread [8] - CLOSED