G.o.d (((((((((athiest))))))))))

Quote:

---

Originally posted by titey+17 August 2003 - 12:56--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (titey @ 17 August 2003 - 12:56)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@17 August 2003 - 06:17
My big difficulty with a purely scientific explanation is that it always leaves the question - but what made that happen ..... ad infinitum.

---

But couldn&#39;t the same be said of "god"?

If nothing existed before "god" created it.... who created "god"? [/b][/quote]
No - omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence cover all of that.

There cant be a nearly God, that&#39;s how infinite works, it&#39;s an all or nothing deal.

God always was, always is and always will be. No rules, no limits.

God, to put it simply is God.

Whew &#33; Here&#39;s the first quote.......regarding the origins of the Bible; ( sorry if this doesn&#39;t exactly fit into the appropriate spot in this thread )

" For some true believers today, the Bible is the Revealed Word Of God and nothing else need be said about its authorship.......
......A century of modern Bible scholarship suggests otherwise. Today, the Bible is regarded by most scholars as a patchwork
of legend, lore and law that was created over a thousand years or so in distant antiquity by countless unknown chroniclers,
lawgivers and storytellers, collected, compiled and corrected by generation after generation of editors ( or &#39; redactors &#39; ).............
Thus, even if we regard what we find in the bible as divinely inspired, the words themselves were spoken aloud by human voices
and set down in writing by human hands............some of the stories are so old that no one remembers when or why they were
first told; some are borrowed from the faith and folklore of travelers and sojourners, allies and enemies, invaders and conquerors;
some are concocted by bards whose motives are not much different from those of Homer or Shakespeare, Mark Twain or
Rudyard Kipling. Over the centuries, the storytelling traditions were expanded upon by priests and scribes whose goal was to
formalize the stories and make them fit into the official faith of ancient Israel. "
From THE HARLOT BY THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. By Jonathan Kirsch

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JPaul@17 August 2003 - 06:58
God always was, always is and always will be. No rules, no limits.

God, to put it simply is God.

---

Pish&#33; :P

Then by that "logic" lynx can merely say that the universe is "god" and his supposition is suddenly fact.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by titey+17 August 2003 - 13:08--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (titey @ 17 August 2003 - 13:08)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@17 August 2003 - 06:58
God always was, always is and always will be. No rules, no limits.

God, to put it simply is God.

---

Pish&#33; :P

[/b][/quote]
Try telling him that.

Oh you will - when your 3 score and 10 is done.

Oh and pish posh to you. See you in heav .... oh never mind

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JPaul@17 August 2003 - 07:12
Oh you will - when your 3 score and 10 is done.

Oh and pish posh to you. See you in heav .... oh never mind

---

Pfffft... I&#39;ll croak long before I reach 70 JP... but I doubt very much I&#39;ll be a talkative corpse.

And I&#39;m sure I&#39;ll burn once I&#39;m gone... I&#39;ll be cremated. :P

Quote:

---

Originally posted by titey+17 August 2003 - 13:17--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (titey @ 17 August 2003 - 13:17)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@17 August 2003 - 07:12
Oh you will - when your 3 score and 10 is done.

Oh and pish posh to you. See you in heav .... oh never mind

---

Pfffft... I&#39;ll croak long before I reach 70 JP... but I doubt very much I&#39;ll be a talkative corpse.

And I&#39;m sure I&#39;ll burn once I&#39;m gone... I&#39;ll be cremated. :P [/b][/quote]
See you don&#39;t have the choice mate.

Eternal life isn&#39;t an opt in, opt out thing.

Unless your particular heaven is to not exist anymore, perhaps He arranges that as well.

Never looked at it that way before - thanks for that.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JPaul@17 August 2003 - 07:20
See you don&#39;t have the choice mate.

Eternal life isn&#39;t an opt in, opt out thing.

---

Life isn&#39;t eternal JP... rather it&#39;s regenerative.

Perhaps some of the molecules from my ashes will someday be a part of another creature, plant or person... that&#39;s as near as I will come to living once I die.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JPaul@17 August 2003 - 12:56
What drivel.

The most intense activity directly after the big bang was in the first few fractions of a second, not year.

You post sir is preposterous and it does you no credit.

Go to your room and come down when you have thought about what you have done.

But me no buts - just go.

---

You are quoting from the irrational big bang theory when you refer so the first few seconds.
But as I have explained, I reject that theory, because time would have been so expanded due to the immense gravitational effects that those &#39;first few seconds&#39; would have had to have happened billions of years before.

Assuming a constant rate of expansion, at one year old (in our current time frame), the universe would have to fit into a volume approximately 3*10^^-28 of it&#39;s current size. The nearest star (if they existed at that time), excluding the sun, would have been 2500 kilometers away. The sun would have been 9 metres away.

Before you dismiss my post as drivel, perhaps you should research some of Einstein&#39;s thinking on the matter, much of which was originally also dismissed as nonsense, but which is now being re-examined as perhaps having more merit than at first realised.

Perhaps it is you who should go to your room, or better still a library, and do a little research on the subject before pronouncing on other people&#39;s theories.

No need to get upset.

Obviously I am not aware of your qualifications on the matter. So apologies for any offence caused. I thought it was apparent I was being light hearted, my mistake if it wasn&#39;t.

However I do know that this subject is way above my head, so I have to rely on people who appear to understand it.

Given that I do know that this is very much the theory favoured by the majority of the scientific community I tend to accept it. Until it is, almost inevitably, proven to be incorrect and replaced.

No point in my reading more about it, I wouldn&#39;t understand anyway.

i think we should all consult our local priest on this topic.