God v No God

[Mr JP Fugley]

Certain people believe that there is a God, who brought our Universe into existence. They cannot explain God's nature, however they believe that he exists.

Other people believe that the Universe simply exists. That it was not created, that it just exists. Logically that can only mean that it always has existed, or that it just popped into existence, from nowhere.

Forget things like "the Big Bang", because even if we accept that it took place then something must have started that. Either God, or the Universe pre Big Bang. (Or we're just back to the "simply popped into existence with no cause" solution.)

At the end of the day neither side can currently prove that they are right. It's just down to individuals to make up their own mind. This can be done in two ways (or some combination of them). By logical deduction or by faith (that goes for either side, faith is not solely the province of those who believe in the God solution).

Personally I go with the God scenario. For the simple reason that it is the simplest solution, I am a fan of "Occums Razor" as you may have noticed.

Please also bear in mind that the existence of God does not pre-suppose an afterlife for us, or a Heaven, or anything like that. We may simply be a self-aware part of the Universe God created. That's another story entirely. It's not an "if you believe God created the Universe, then you must accept everything else" situation, much as some people may try to convince you it is.

[DorisInsinuate]

Shut it, zealot.

[Wolfmight]

Scientific Anomalies = Religion

Religion = Scientific Anomalies

Their single connection to each other. :D
plus it's the single reason I believe there's some truth to religion. (what else is there to believe when believing in science only tells you technically we shouldn't exist. Science says, No Very First Creator = No Product...yet the universe is still here, when it would be "scientifically" impossible to have the very first creator in existence without one before it. Religion says, God = Very First Creator whom doesn't need anything to create itself.
Now what gets me is, why are there so many different religions??? It's insane. They can't all possibly be worshiping the "creator of the universe" god.

And what's up with Satan? This existance of life "REQUIRES" evil for good. One can't "be" without the other. There was a time without evil? Were people in a neutral state, doomed to never do good nor evil...always doing as you say, so-so?
Also, why couldn't god just destroy that fallen angel?

[Mr JP Fugley]

You're falling into the old "must take the whole package" trap.

Assume that God created the Universe, how does anything else automatically follow from that. It doesn't.

[DorisInsinuate]

Real scientists won't deny the possibility of deities, nor fully acknowledge their existence.

[Mr JP Fugley]

science galactacos ftw.

[manker]

Something once created stuff. Must have.

That's about as much truck as I'll have with any god or gods.

[peat moss]

I don't believe myself but when my children ask me I say yes , they can decide them selves later in life . Bit of a cop out but what can you do .

[ilw]

Personally I go with the God scenario. For the simple reason that it is the simplest solution, I am a fan of "Occums Razor" as you may have noticed.

Isn't that totally arse backwards?

Occam's (alt spelling Ockham) razor was written in latin but basically translates as:
"entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity"

'Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory'

or to put it simpler don't invent unnecessary crap to explain stuff.

Occam's razor = no god.

(Info from wikipedia)

Edit: And even if you interpret it as simpler is better. How is creating a god to create the universe simpler than just creating the universe?

[Mr JP Fugley]

Good point.

Your solution that the universe just popped into existence, from nothing is much simpler.

[Proper Bo]

mang, philosophy rawked, I miss it.

[manker]

Edit: And even if you interpret it as simpler is better. How is creating a god to create the universe simpler than just creating the universe?The thing is that you just said that you think that the universe was created.

Create. It's a verb, see, someone or something must be doing it for that sentence to make sense.

You're implying the first part of the sentence by saying the second.

[Mr JP Fugley]

I miss it.
When did you stop living your life well.

[Mr JP Fugley]

Edit: And even if you interpret it as simpler is better. How is creating a god to create the universe simpler than just creating the universe?The thing is that you just said that you think that the universe was created.

Create. It's a verb, see, someone or something must be doing it for that sentence to make sense.

You're implying the first part of the sentence by saying the second.
Can I just opine how brilliant a point that is.

[ilw]

for the record something can be created spontaneously from nothing and by nothing e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_polarization
but thats a gay argument. the last sentence was a last minute edit which i didn't even think through, so i'm not bothered that its a bit inconsistent and that i didn't choose my words carefully

[DorisInsinuate]

Since someone started dropping Wikipedia articles, I call upon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

All science is based on assumption. If you drop a stone you assume it'll fall down, but how can you be sure that the next time we drop it, it won't fall upwards?

Scientists once said atoms were the smallest possible particles, those idiots :no2:

[Mr JP Fugley]

My fave bit was when we larfed at the medievals because they thought that light came in particles.

[Mr JP Fugley]

, so i'm not bothered that its a bit inconsistent and that i didn't choose my words carefully
obviously

[DorisInsinuate]

My fave bit was when we larfed at the medievals because they thought that light came in particles.
Lay off the :physicsrod: I haven't studied that area in a while :no:

[Mr JP Fugley]

My fave bit was when we larfed at the medievals because they thought that light came in particles.
Lay off the :physicsrod: I haven't studied that area in a while :no:
obviously

[manker]

for the record something can be created spontaneously from nothing and by nothing e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_polarization
but thats a gay argument. the last sentence was a last minute edit which i didn't even think through, so i'm not bothered that its a bit inconsistent and that i didn't choose my words carefullyShame too, since it was the only bit you did write, given you said the rest was from wiki.

Anyway, just so long as you know what you meant, who cares what its intended audience thinks, eh.

[Mr JP Fugley]

for the record something can be created spontaneously from nothing and by nothing e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_polarization
but thats a gay argument. the last sentence was a last minute edit which i didn't even think through, so i'm not bothered that its a bit inconsistent and that i didn't choose my words carefullyShame too, since it was the only bit you did write, given you said the rest was from wiki.

Anyway, just so long as you know what you meant, who cares what its intended audience thinks, eh.
Stop being me, that's the only thing I'm actually good at.

[Mr JP Fugley]

Shame too, since it was the only bit you did write, given you said the rest was from wiki.

Anyway, just so long as you know what you meant, who cares what its intended audience thinks, eh.
Stop being me, that's the only thing I'm actually good at.

Fuck Sake, I think I may be the main charcter in cyber fight club.

[manker]

:glag: :glag:


http://www.heykoop.nl/200510071817.jpg

[Mr JP Fugley]

Did I post that.

[Busyman™]

I am more inclined to believe that there was/is an intelligent being that always has been in existence than a rock and what makes up that rock.

When some question who created the creator, it makes more sense to me that the creator was this starting point and not some particles popped in by.....no one.:ermm:

To go further, the fact that physical rules govern what goes on in the natural world had to have a starting point other than "that's just how it is."

Not to say that a creator wrote in a rule book, "Gravity acceleration on Earth = 9.8 m/s" but the initial physical laws that made it end up that way (for the time being) had to be started by an intelligent being, imo.

As a tangent, I believe none of this (besides gravity of course) should be taught in science class. It does not and cannot advance science, only philosophy.

[Proper Bo]

I am more inclined to believe that there was/is an intelligent being that always has been in existence than a rock and what makes up that rock.

When some question who created the creator, it makes more sense to me that the creator was this starting point and not some particles popped in by.....no one.:ermm:

To go further, the fact that physical rules govern what goes on in the natural world had to have a starting point other than "that's just how it is."

Not to say that a creator wrote in a rule book, "Gravity acceleration on Earth = 9.8 m/s" but the initial physical laws that made it end up that way (for the time being) had to be started by an intelligent being, imo.

As a tangent, I believe none of this (besides gravity of course) should be taught in science class. It does not and cannot advance science, only philosophy.

but what was there before this intelligent being?

the fact is, the concept of the beginning (and the limits) of the universe are inconceivable.

[Seedler]

I am more inclined to believe that there was/is an intelligent being that always has been in existence than a rock and what makes up that rock.

When some question who created the creator, it makes more sense to me that the creator was this starting point and not some particles popped in by.....no one.:ermm:

To go further, the fact that physical rules govern what goes on in the natural world had to have a starting point other than "that's just how it is."

Not to say that a creator wrote in a rule book, "Gravity acceleration on Earth = 9.8 m/s" but the initial physical laws that made it end up that way (for the time being) had to be started by an intelligent being, imo.

As a tangent, I believe none of this (besides gravity of course) should be taught in science class. It does not and cannot advance science, only philosophy.

but what was there before this intelligent being?

the fact is, the concept of the beginning (and the limits) of the universe are inconceivable.

There was nothing before this being.

The being has been around forever and will be.

[Proper Bo]

but what was there before this intelligent being?

the fact is, the concept of the beginning (and the limits) of the universe are inconceivable.

There was nothing before this being.

The being has been around forever and will be.

My point is that you can't comprehend anything before this being, there must have been something, if not, why did it take this being so long to create the universe, and what was there before the universe was created? As I said, it's an inconceivable idea.

I think (been a while since I studied philosophy:wacko: ) it was Plato who said everything must have a beginning and an end.

edit: Also, where does this being exist, because if it created the universe, it must have to be somehwere outside the universe.

[Proper Bo]

Sorry, I just checked that Plato thing.
According to Plato, everything in the Universe had to have sprung from some initial principle, which must, by definition, have been something capable of springing into motion by itself.
If that is the case, what was there before this initial principle? There cannot have just been nothingness, as nothingness itself is something.

[Busyman™]

I am more inclined to believe that there was/is an intelligent being that always has been in existence than a rock and what makes up that rock.

When some question who created the creator, it makes more sense to me that the creator was this starting point and not some particles popped in by.....no one.:ermm:

To go further, the fact that physical rules govern what goes on in the natural world had to have a starting point other than "that's just how it is."

Not to say that a creator wrote in a rule book, "Gravity acceleration on Earth = 9.8 m/s" but the initial physical laws that made it end up that way (for the time being) had to be started by an intelligent being, imo.

As a tangent, I believe none of this (besides gravity of course) should be taught in science class. It does not and cannot advance science, only philosophy.

but what was there before this intelligent being?

the fact is, the concept of the beginning (and the limits) of the universe are inconceivable.
Of course it is.

I believe God always is and always was and God began the universe as we know it.

Ok there it is.

When I was a youngster, I thought of other ways that God existed and started the universe. I wrote a paper once about God being the dense energy and was the Big Bang itself. When some religious folk say God is everywhere, he really is. I've had other theories that would take too long for the moment.

Anything is conceivable.

[Proper Bo]

So where does "God" exist?

edit: I'm using "God" as a generic term for a higher being, could just as easily be any other higher being from any other faith.

[Busyman™]

So where does "God" exist?

edit: I'm using "God" as a generic term for a higher being, could just as easily be any other higher being from any other faith.

See above. I only added 1 sentence in the edit.:dry:

[Proper Bo]

the busyman(TM) edit:smilie4:

[Proper Bo]

You say anything is conceivable, it is impossible for the human mind to comprehend a limitless universe. If there was a being which created the universe, there has to have been something before it in which the being itself, in this case you say god, existed surely?

[Proper Bo]

by the way, if this gets moved to the drawing room or whatever it's called, i shall refuse to partake any further in it:snooty:

[Seedler]

All this is beyond human intelligence.

Either trust and accept without knowledge nor understanding or reject it.

[Busyman™]

by the way, if this gets moved to the drawing room or whatever it's called, i shall refuse to partake any further in it:snooty:
Oh well. :smilie4:

[Busyman™]

the busyman(TM) edit:smilie4:
Well you asked a question that was addressed before the edit.

Whether you saw an edit afterwards, it did not preclude you from seeing what was already there, right?

[Busyman™]

You say anything is conceivable, it is impossible for the human mind to comprehend a limitless universe. If there was a being which created the universe, there has to have been something before it in which the being itself, in this case you say god, existed surely?
You say that there had to be an outer space or something. You think small and "in the universe" so to speak. Nothing wrong with that though.

So you say that the human mind has thought boundaries. I say it doesn't. That would mean imagination has limits. That would mean we would have a technological limit.

We don't.

[thewizeard]

Residing deep within an South American valley, God smiles to himself...

[DorisInsinuate]

Food for thought:

http://www.math.tifr.res.in/~shanta/pic/infinity.gif

[Chip Monk]

This is why people have such difficulty with the basics. It's not enough to decide whether a God created the Universe or not. Some people cannot consider how the Universe came about, based purely on logical deduction. Rather than that they ask, "if God exists, then what is his address?".

It is no more ridiculous to suggest that God exists outside of spacetime than it is to suggest that the whole Universe just came into being spontaneously, from nothingness. In fact, it is less ridiculous.

As such, much as I cannot tell you God's postcode, or give you his phone number, it is reasonable for me to say that he exists. It's the simplest way to explain the problem.

Now whether he cares about us, or even know's we exist, that is entirely another story.

[Gripper]

I like to think of the "universe" as a sentient being and due to its size we are just a microscopic part of it,as I understand it the universe is expanding form some sort of cosmic center and when the outward energy slows to a stop then we will start contracting back into the center.
When all the matter reachs the center it will again explode and thus the cycle of life will begin again.
You can call it what you like,God ,Goddes whatever,wether it takes notice of us who knows,do we take notice of dead skin cells flaikng off our body,not really it just happens.
So "God" won't notice us until we do enough to upset the cosmic whole,much as we ignore our body till it becomes sick.
I have kinda lost my thread of thought now,so I'll stfu.

[Barbarossa]

All this is beyond human intelligence.

Either trust and accept without knowledge nor understanding or reject it.

That's the most sensible thing you've ever said.



JP - I don't think you've chosen the simplest solution, you've just commuted the same problem to a higher level. ::stars:

The thing that we can't seem to get our heads around, is that there was no time before the universe, because time is a property of the universe. There is no space outside of the universe, because space is a property of the universe.

The universe just exists. Maybe it's one of an infinite number of universes occupying the same space, we'll never know.

The way I look at it, is to imagine that the universe was only 2 dimensional, and existed on the surface of a balloon. Now if you inflated the balloon, the universe would expand, if you let some air out of the balloon, then the universe will contract.

Now try to explain to a being that lives in that 2 dimensional universe what exactly is happening :stars:

The concept of another dimension of space would be completely beyond him, as all his knowledge about his universe is limited to 2 dimensions.

This is our problem with our universe. Our knowledge of it will always be limited to what we can observe.

[DorisInsinuate]

The universe just exists. Maybe it's one of an infinite number of universes occupying the same space, we'll never know.
Not very ambitious are we :no:

How can we be sure that we can't observe all the dimensions of the universe? Isn't it worth expanding our knowledge of the infinite? (That's the noun infinite).

[Barbarossa]

The universe just exists. Maybe it's one of an infinite number of universes occupying the same space, we'll never know.
Not very ambitious are we :no:

How can we be sure that we can't observe all the dimensions of the universe? Isn't it worth expanding our knowledge of the infinite? (That's the noun infinite).

Not to me. Ambition is for emos.

If you find out the answer, then let me know. :mellow:

[Chip Monk]

Not very ambitious are we :no:

How can we be sure that we can't observe all the dimensions of the universe? Isn't it worth expanding our knowledge of the infinite? (That's the noun infinite).

Not to me. Ambition is for emos.

:lol:

Ah but bear in mind, the emos shall inherit the Earth.

Or was that the cheesemakers?

[Proper Bo]

But how can the universe contract if it doesn't end?

[Gripper]

We aren't like our ancestors are we,"look out,the universe is flat if you go to far you'll fall off"

[Barbarossa]

Science, lol.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4974134.stm


A joint UK-US team has put forward an alternative theory of cosmic evolution.

It proposes that the Universe undergoes cycles of "Big Bangs" and "Big Crunches", meaning our Universe is merely a "child of the previous one".

It challenges the conventional view of the cosmos, which observations show to be 12-14 billion years old.

The new ideas, reported in the journal Science, may explain why the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, the researchers say.

"At present the conventional view is that all of space, time, matter and energy began at a single point, which then expanded and cooled, leaving the Universe as it is today," said Professor Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, New Jersey.

"However, this new theory suggests that there's a continuous cycle of universes, with each a repeat of the last, but not an exact replica.

"It can be thought of as a child of the previous universe."

Cosmological constant

The new idea builds on previous work by the same team, and is set to challenge the current model.

Back in the 1920s, when Einstein was developing his general theory of relativity, he introduced a constant, known as the cosmological constant, to explain his idea of a static Universe.

Einstein's equations predicted a Universe collapsing under its own gravitational force, whereas observation showed it clearly was not contracting.

The cosmological constant represented an inherent pressure or force associated with free space, which would be resisting the gravity-drive contraction.

The concept was later abandoned when observations showed the Universe to be expanding - causing Einstein to label the cosmological constant as "the greatest blunder of my career".

In 1998, a form of the constant was re-habilitated when it was found that the Universe's expansion was actually speeding up.

Unanswered questions

Although the re-introduction of the constant enabled calculations to match theory, it also raised the question that there was something in physics that was "missing".

Professor Neil Turok, of Cambridge University, told the BBC News website: "When the value of the cosmological constant was calculated, it was found to be much smaller than expected.

"The explanation as to why this constant is so small has become one of the biggest problems in physics.

"At present, the only explanation for this is that things just have to be that way." This theory leaves many questions unanswered, but now Professors Steinhardt and Turok have developed a new theory to explain why the cosmological constant is so small.

They suggest that time actually began before the Big Bang, meaning there was a pre-existing universe.

This would also mean that the current Universe is much older than presently accepted.

Dark matter

"At present there may be an alternative 'dark matter' universe that exists at the same time as ours, but we could never reach it," explained Professor Turok.

"The best way to think of this is to think of a pane of double glazing with a fly on it. The fly is unable to cross over from one side to another, just like we are unable to get from one universe to another.

"These two universes are drawn together by the force of gravity and will eventually collide.

"This means that things that are happening now will help to create another universe in the future."

Source : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4974134.stm

[DorisInsinuate]

Pfft, people started to realise the Earth was round at around 7th century BC (Before God was invented).

[lynx]

Pfft, people started to realise the Earth was round at around 7th century BC (Before God was invented created). :shifty:

[Gripper]

Probably a rod,but BC stands for Before Christ

[DorisInsinuate]

Probably a rod,but BC stands for Before Christ
It would be wrong to claim a rod. It's more like spanking you on the face with the unsubtlety pole.

[Gripper]

:O :cry: :cry1: :emo:

[Fromagepas]

Probably a rod,but BC stands for Before Christ
Who's talking about Christ?

[Busyman™]

But how can the universe contract if it doesn't end?
How do you know it doesn't end?

[Proper Bo]

But how can the universe contract if it doesn't end?
How do you know it doesn't end?

I never claimed I did. I was going on the general assumption that everybody seems to agree with; that the universe is infinite.
Are you just randomly asking questions?

[Fromagepas]

Yeah, but it's infinite within a finite space, I thought everyone knew that.

[Proper Bo]

:schnauz:

[GepperRankins]

:dabs:

[Busyman™]

How do you know it doesn't end?

I never claimed I did. I was going on the general assumption that everybody seems to agree with; that the universe is infinite.
Are you just randomly asking questions?
Like you?

I never claimed you claimed you knew. I was going on the general assumption of the random question you posed.

You wouldn't know.

[Proper Bo]

I never claimed I did. I was going on the general assumption that everybody seems to agree with; that the universe is infinite.
Are you just randomly asking questions?
Like you?

I never claimed you claimed you knew. I was going on the general assumption of the random question you posed.

You wouldn't know.

Are you going for the "I know you are, you said you are, so what am I?" approach here?

[Mr JP Fugley]

I never claimed I did. I was going on the general assumption that everybody seems to agree with; that the universe is infinite.
Are you just randomly asking questions?


I never claimed you claimed you knew.
he never claimed you claimed he claimed he knew.

I think that's cleared up.

[Proper Bo]

I never claimed you claimed you knew.
he never claimed you claimed he claimed he knew.

I think that's cleared up.

Are you claiming that he claimed I claimed he claimed I knew?

[Mr JP Fugley]

he never claimed you claimed he claimed he knew.

I think that's cleared up.

Are you claiming that he claimed I claimed he claimed I knew?
Ten to twelve.

[Mr. Mulder]

:o

[Busyman™]

Like you?

I never claimed you claimed you knew. I was going on the general assumption of the random question you posed.

You wouldn't know.

Are you going for the "I know you are, you said you are, so what am I?" approach here?
No not at all.

but what was there before this intelligent being?

Also, where does this being exist, because if it created the universe, it must have to be somehwere outside the universe.

If that is the case, what was there before this initial principle?

So where does "God" exist?

If there was a being which created the universe, there has to have been something before it in which the being itself, in this case you say god, existed surely?

But how can the universe contract if it doesn't end?
STFU

[R. Irrelevant]

wibble

[Proper Bo]

Everything I asked was relevant to points made by others.
Your question was asking me something about I never said, i don't think I said the universe was infinite or had an end, I just questioned others perceptions.

[Mr. Mulder]

yeah, cocksnot.

[Seedler]

h4rsh?

[thewizeard]

But how can the universe contract if it doesn't end?

You seem to be equating contraction with ending... that's incorrect reasoning Bo.

[Busyman™]

Everything I asked was relevant to points made by others.
Your question was asking me something about I never said, i don't think I said the universe was infinite or had an end, I just questioned others perceptions.
I gotcha.


But how can the universe contract if it doesn't end?
How do you know it doesn't end?
Totally unrelated. :crazy:

[manker]

Busy, you usually ask stupid questions when you don't know the answer to something. Whenever you do that, it signifies to me (prolly others too) that you don't have a clue how to answer and are trying to misdirect the person or people countering your weak assertions.

Since we're all in the same boat of complete ignorance, this thread must seem like a veritable safe haven, eh.

[Proper Bo]

But how can the universe contract if it doesn't end?

You seem to be equating contraction with ending... that's incorrect reasoning Bo.


v. con·tract·ed, con·tract·ing (kn-trkt, kntrkt)

To reduce in size by drawing together; shrink.

How can something which is supposedly infinite become smaller?

[Barbarossa]

Why do you think it's infinite?

[Proper Bo]

The only thing which would lead me to think it was infinite is the sheer difficulty of trying to picture anything beyond.

edit: but it's also hard to imagine there being a beginning, well, anything before the beginning actually.

[Barbarossa]

Space-time is warped beyond our understanding. :sage:

[DorisInsinuate]

Technically infinite can be a finite number, everyone's just too lazy to work out what it is.

[manker]

Technically infinite can be a finite number, everyone's just too lazy to work out what it is.No it can't because 'infinite' is an adjective.

Tch.

[Barbarossa]

Aleph-Nought is the lowest form of infinity.

I don't know what the above means, but it's all I learnt in Abstract Number Theory classes. :dabs:

[DorisInsinuate]

I think the theological, scientific, semantical, and mathematical discussions in this thread balance out the inane shit of the animated .gif thread.

I think we should celebrate it with the postage of CDC.

http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/7663/magentacock9lk.gif

[Gripper]

The french are warped beyond our understanding. :parsley:

[Busyman™]

Busy, you usually ask stupid questions when you don't know the answer to something. Whenever you do that, it signifies to me (prolly others too) that you don't have a clue how to answer and are trying to misdirect the person or people countering your weak assertions.

Since we're all in the same boat of complete ignorance, this thread must seem like a veritable safe haven, eh.
Sounds like "singling-out making up bullshit" to me.

Show me where I usually ask stupid questions.

[Busyman™]

Technically infinite can be a finite number, everyone's just too lazy to work out what it is.
Makes sense. It might take awhile.

[thewizeard]

Well, maybe it sort of... breathes..and so doing, expands and contracts...

[Busyman™]

Technically infinite can be a finite number, everyone's just too lazy to work out what it is.No it can't because 'infinite' is an adjective.

Tch.
:lol: :lol:

[thewizeard]

If you were on the inside of a globe...and started walking, you would never reach the end...so something finite can produce something infinite

[Proper Bo]

Well, maybe it sort of... breathes..and so doing, expands and contracts...

:no:

[WOX]

umm a lot of people have made their points very valid so as far as i'm concerned we know this, everybody have heard of God but no one have saw him, a lot of people believe in him all of their life without any proof that he exists, some people start believe in him after they watch a "miracle".

but the truth is we can't tell either if he exist or not just because a casuality just happen but we like to call them "miracles" beacuse it just happen something you don't see everyday.

going out of the subject does have anyone realize that the fallen angel a.k.a Satan maybe he found something of god that's not very good, so he kicked him out. (ring a bell adam and eve).

ok not going a little to far remember the stroy of the bible about adam and eve about the apple i know God order them around to not to do it but as i recall God himself create free will, so why would he care about an apple and not the atomic bomb.

[Proper Bo]

It's been a while since I did RE but didn't adam and eve gain the ability to know right from wrong by eating the fruit they were told not to eat? Shirley god set them up for failure when he put the fruit there as they didn't know that it was wrong to eat it:dabs:

god=cunt:smilie4:

[WOX]

i'm starting to believe this apple means more than meets the eye.

[Busyman™]

If you were on the inside of a globe...and started walking, you would never reach the end...so something finite can produce something infinite
What about the outside of the globe?

There's one o those stupid questions again. :smilie4:

[thewizeard]

The Judas gospel vividly reflects the struggle waged long ago between the Gnostics and the hierarchical church. In the very first scene Jesus laughs at the disciples for praying to “your god,” meaning the disastrous god who created the world. He compares the disciples to a priest in the temple (almost certainly a reference to the mainstream church), whom he calls “a minister of error” planting “trees without fruit, in my name, in a shameful manner.” He challenges the disciples to look at him and understand what he really is, but they turn away.


read this in the National Geographic's latest feature over the Judas manuscript...

http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/gospel/feature.html


@ Busyman...I was coming to the outside...but as we seem to be on the "inside", the analogy seemed more fitting :)

[lynx]

Well, maybe it sort of... breathes..and so doing, expands and contracts...
Has it been holding its breath recently?

[Mr JP Fugley]

david blane = the universe.

Having said that, I do believe in the inter-connected nature of all things.

[Barbarossa]

david blane = mad

Therefore the universe = mad

Therefore electrons can jump across quantum barriers in space and time, and wormholes always appear at the back of washing machines that only swallow socks.

:eyebrows:

[manker]

Busy, you usually ask stupid questions when you don't know the answer to something. Whenever you do that, it signifies to me (prolly others too) that you don't have a clue how to answer and are trying to misdirect the person or people countering your weak assertions.

Since we're all in the same boat of complete ignorance, this thread must seem like a veritable safe haven, eh.
Sounds like "singling-out making up bullshit" to me.

Show me where I usually ask stupid questions.I've no need to show you.

Since you write the stupid questions, you're well aware of them already. So is everyone who has ever had a discussion with you.

No big deal, you just suck.

[Barbarossa]

I mean the wormholes swallow the socks, not the washing machines :eyebrows:

[Barbarossa]

Wormholes can't swallow washing machines. shut-up cretin. Stop posting now. :emo:

[Busyman™]

Sounds like "singling-out making up bullshit" to me.

Show me where I usually ask stupid questions.I've no need to show you.

Since you write the stupid questions, you're well aware of them already. So is everyone who has ever had a discussion with you.

No big deal, you just suck.
Good, good. I thought that your previous post was just one o yer trolling moments full of bullshit.

Mmk, moving on......

[Proper Bo]

http://img62.exs.cx/img62/4503/carlton1a7on.gifhttp://img62.exs.cx/img62/2834/carlton2a8cs.gif

[Busyman™]

http://img62.exs.cx/img62/4503/carlton1a7on.gifhttp://img62.exs.cx/img62/2834/carlton2a8cs.gif
Look at me go. :snooty:

[Proper Bo]

:lol::earl:

[Mr JP Fugley]

http://img62.exs.cx/img62/4503/carlton1a7on.gifhttp://img62.exs.cx/img62/2834/carlton2a8cs.gif
Look at me go. :snooty:
:lol: