Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

JESUS CHRIST!! what a wall o'text!!Follow

#102 May 12 2011 at 9:32 AM Rating: Decent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
This thread is just one continuous Smiley: rolleyes
Par for the course when liberal gbaji gets involved in a conversation.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#103 May 12 2011 at 9:34 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
This thread is just one continuous Smiley: rolleyes
Par for the course when liberal gbaji gets involved in a conversation.


paulsol?

EDIT: Well, I suppose he's not verbose enough. So Kelvy is liberal gbaji? He sounds more like Shador to me.

Edited, May 12th 2011 11:36am by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#104 May 12 2011 at 9:36 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
This thread is just one continuous Smiley: rolleyes
Par for the course when liberal gbaji gets involved in a conversation.
Extraordinary amount of content combined with extraordinary lack of substance?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#105 May 12 2011 at 9:36 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
No, not Kelvy. The actual moron in the discussion.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#106 May 12 2011 at 9:49 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,880 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Elinda wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Reasoning God is cute.
It's vain. It only thinks it's cute. At least that's what I gathered from skimming the thread.



I'm quite aware that there is a stark limit to how far anyone can present such a concept and that no one can ever be "talked into" or persuaded to believe.

One of the prime points, however, to all of this is that once people reach the edge of that limit do they just shrug and turn around or do they choose to look over the edge (that is when the "abyss" looks back and it is not the abyss at all but your salvation unto eternity).
They build a plexiglass platform out over the abyss knowing full well they'll not see everything, but that maybe they'll see a bit more.



more like; they build a rickety decrepit half rotting bridge to try to get across and can never ever make it..
OR if they ask That which put them there for wings they just fly across.
Salvation without sentience is useless or doesn't even really exist I guess.

Welcome back Kelvy. Besides God, what's new?


Thanks!

Why would you think saved means lack of sentience?
I guess cuz we can't stop death and the only death we know right now leaves us as unawares.

Quote:
Besides God.. I'm engaged.. got a great chill job that pays well.. recently got my car totaled 2 weeks ago but am getting my new one tomorrow! WOOOO
No kids yet.. a few more guns.. playing LOTRO..got the woman to play it too (ELENDILMIR)

Blessed!
Congrats on the engagement. I've been playing lotro too, but not very often. My daughter, my son and I have a threesome of hobbits we play occasionally (Meneldor). We've been at it for about a month now though and have only hit level 11.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#107 May 12 2011 at 9:59 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,963 posts
Elinda wrote:
I guess cuz we can't stop death and the only death we know right now leaves us as unawares.


Death and "unknown" could probably be almost synonymous in the right light. It has always seemed apparent though that whatever is in us that is sentient is on a different elementary basis than the parts of us that are not sentient; so to think that the sentient part of us goes on doesn't really seem so unbelievable; though it cannot seem to be proven scientifically.

Quote:
Congrats on the engagement. I've been playing lotro too, but not very often. My daughter, my son and I have a threesome of hobbits we play occasionally (Meneldor). We've been at it for about a month now though and have only hit level 11.

Thanks again!
LotRO has always been one of those games I can just walk around and chill out in the world rather than stressing out over level grinding. I feel they did a great job creating it.
I think most of my time in it has been standing around playing music. My highest toon is 58MIN.. running around Moria now.


____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#108 May 12 2011 at 10:00 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,277 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:


You know if you are so stuck on Greek philosophy why are you ignoring the concept of Logos; the notion that things LOGICALLY exist that cannot ever be understood through Logic?


P.D. Ouspensky (Tertium Organum) wrote:
The logical relations in the world of many dimensions just as absurd to us. There is no reason whatever for hoping that in the world of causes relations can be logical from our point of view. On the contrary, we may say that EVERYTHING LOGICAL is only phenomenal. On the other side there can be nothing logical from our point of view. Everything that exists there is bound to appear to us a logical absurdity, nonsense. And we must remember that we cannot orient ourselves there with our logic...

Science cannot deny the fact that mathematics grows widens and passes beyond the boundaries of the visible and measurable world. Whole sections of mathematics examine qualitative relations which do not exist and never existed in the real world of positivism, i.e. relations to which there are no corresponding realities in the visible i.e. three-dimensional world.

But there cannot be any mathematical relations for which there would be no corresponding realities at all. Consequently mathematics transcends the boundaries of this world and peeps into the world of the unknown. It is a telescope by means of which we begin to investigate the space of many dimensions with its worlds. Mathematics goes in the vanguard of our thought, in the vanguard of our powers of imagination and representation. It already calculates relationships which we are totally incapable of imagining or even thinking about.


I think that dualism is a product of our limited minds, rather than being a fundamental reality of the universe.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#109 May 12 2011 at 10:30 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,963 posts
Olorinus the Vile wrote:


I think that dualism is a product of our limited minds, rather than being a fundamental reality of the universe.


I quite agree and it seems that what people love to do is to take the most basic levels of Platonic, etc philosophies and once they gain some rudimentary understanding to make them feel safe with themselves and their place in the universe they just stop there and automatically reject anything outside of that box.. the whole time thinking that what they are believing is so profound and out-of-the-box when in fact it is the most en vogue thing ever to reject God.

If you still with the Dualist view of a logical reality then you are stuck in jumping from black to white, good and evil, God and the devil.. and it is simply irreconcilable to a truly intelligent person with a keen analytical mind. The pieces will never add up. People like that are unable to accept that there may actually be a meaning to everything and to their lives besides what is just decaying atomic structures..

People rail on about evil and say that God created it and blame God for the evils of the world; Evil is not a particular action or deed; evil is the lack of God.. like a shadow out of the light.. We want to only blame the Light for not being where the shadows are but don't stop to think that it is we that have our backs to the light casting the shadows which are empty of God's positive force.

____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#110 May 12 2011 at 10:53 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,277 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:

People rail on about evil and say that God created it and blame God for the evils of the world; Evil is not a particular action or deed; evil is the lack of God.. like a shadow out of the light.. We want to only blame the Light for not being where the shadows are but don't stop to think that it is we that have our backs to the light casting the shadows which are empty of God's positive force.


Avva Dorotheus - seventh century, Philokalia wrote:
Imagine a circle in the middle, its centre, and radii, or rays, going out of this centre. The further these radii travel from the centre, the more divergent and distant they become from one another; and the other way around, the closer they are to the centre, the nearer they approach one another. Imagine now that this circle is the world, the very middle of it, God, and the straight likes (radii) going out from the centre towards the circumference, or going from the circumference to the centre are the paths of men's lives.


The perception of evil arises from the darkness in the space between us when we stand on the circumference of the circle.

This circle can just as easily be understood as a metaphor for love. As our neighbourly love grows we move closer to the centre of the circle, closer to each other, and our perception of reality as an experience of separation fades to become an experience of unification.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#111 May 12 2011 at 11:04 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,963 posts
Olorinus the Vile wrote:
This circle can just as easily be understood as a metaphor for love. As our neighbourly love grows we move closer to the centre of the circle, closer to each other, and our perception of reality as an experience of separation fades to become an experience of unification.


This speaks of the straight path to the Source; I do think that that path was once straight but at a certain point it had become a bent and twisted path, dark but with sunlight streaming in narrow beams in some areas. We have dug these paths amid the thorns and we are now unable to truly make it to the True Center without accepting the Hand of the True Center that has been lifted up as a light for all to turn towards and be illuminated by.



Edited, May 12th 2011 1:05pm by Kelvyquayo
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#112 May 12 2011 at 11:48 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,954 posts
bsphil wrote:
Imaginary friends are for children.


Or predicting the stock market without any of that insider trading.

Edited, May 12th 2011 1:52pm by Timelordwho
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#113 May 12 2011 at 11:54 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
bsphil wrote:
Imaginary friends are for children.


Or predicting the stock market without any of that insider trading.

He was a lot funnier before he started making movies to take his kids to.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#114 May 12 2011 at 1:11 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,792 posts
Quote:
Thus even the fool is convinced that something than which nothing greater can be conceived is in the understanding, since when he hears this, he understands it; and whatever is understood is in the understanding. And certainly that than which a greater cannot be conceived cannot be in the understanding alone. For if it is even in the understanding alone, it can be conceived to exist in reality also, which is greater. Thus if that than which a greater cannot be conceived is in the understanding alone, then that than which a greater cannot be conceived is itself that than which a greater can be conceived. But surely this cannot be. Thus without doubt something than which a greater cannot be conceived exists, both in the understanding and in reality.


The ontological argument for god doesn't fail because of different types of possibility, it fails because it is invalid. The claim is that god is, by definition, necessary. So, if it is possible that god exists, that would mean he had to exist (which is valid).

The problem is misunderstanding the term "possibility." God, by his nature, may either exist or not exist in all possible worlds. There's no in between. When someone says "it's possible god exists," they are misusing the word "possible." The proper logical phrasing of that sentence would be "I do not know that God does not exist."

It's an epistemological comment, not a metaphysical one. When you consider the argument's logical form, it fails. Completely.

Possibility is purely logical--there is no other form.

If god can exist, then he does exist. That's true. And no philosophers I know of claim otherwise.

The problem is that you have no reason to claim god possibly exists in a metaphysical way. It's only epistemological. Your lack of understanding of the world isn't grounds for possibility--that's why logical possibility is, well, possibility properly-so-called.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#115 May 12 2011 at 1:20 PM Rating: Good
Equal Opportunity Hater
*****
19,369 posts
DSD wrote:
Sup Kelvy. Glad to see you're still around and not dead =)



I don't know, I would be more interested in reading his blabbering if he were dead.
#116 May 12 2011 at 2:05 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,880 posts
MentalFrog wrote:
DSD wrote:
Sup Kelvy. Glad to see you're still around and not dead =)



I don't know, I would be more interested in reading his blabbering if he were dead.
If he were blabbering from beyond it would certainly change the texture of this thread.

Hey speaking of being dead and all; My Nook keeps trying to get me to read The Boy Who Came Back From Heaven. It's become quite a hit. I haven't even opened the free sample that appeared.

Anyone read it?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#117 May 12 2011 at 6:13 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Elinda wrote:
MentalFrog wrote:
DSD wrote:
Sup Kelvy. Glad to see you're still around and not dead =)



I don't know, I would be more interested in reading his blabbering if he were dead.
If he were blabbering from beyond it would certainly change the texture of this thread.

Hey speaking of being dead and all; My Nook keeps trying to get me to read The Boy Who Came Back From Heaven. It's become quite a hit. I haven't even opened the free sample that appeared.

Anyone read it?
mfw I read the cover.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#118 May 12 2011 at 8:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Interesting take on the multiverse hypothesis. It's one that is certainly gaining more weight, too. I'm sure someone will step in and present infinite regression to you, though.


I'm familiar with infinite regression, but I disagree that it is necessarily fallacious. In fact, circularity as innate fallacy hasn't been adequately substantiated either. There are certainly examples where it is, but there are also simple examples where it isn't. If 2+2=4, then 4-2=2. This, arguably, is circular reasoning. At the very least, as Kelvy clumsily pointed out, the Big Bang (in addition to creationism), is a fallacy of causality.

Granted in terms of the natural world, we have little grounds to speak on what is fallacious, but if I have to choose between infinite regression and a violation of causality, I will pick the former every time. We have plenty of examples of the latter failing, but no grounds to speak against the former other than a combination of ego and an infinitesimal perspective.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#119 May 12 2011 at 8:03 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
My God's son carries a hammer and your God's son got nailed to a cross.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#120 May 12 2011 at 8:07 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
I would have never pegged Thor as a Jew.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#121 May 12 2011 at 8:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,792 posts
Infinite regression isn't really a problem for many physicians though (meta or regular). Time began with the Big Bang. That isn't to say that the energy released in the Big Bang was created in the first instant of time.

It's just that "time" is a property of the universe as it stands now. It did not always need to be that way. When we talk about "before" the Big Bang, we are speaking about the logical ordering of events.

So saying time is infinite is wrong by the definition of time. That doesn't mean it can't be true that the Big Bang "created" nothing. It's just that we can't speak about what happened before then in terms of time, but only in terms of logical systems.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#122 May 12 2011 at 8:15 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
idiggory wrote:
Infinite regression isn't really a problem for many physicians though (meta or regular). Time began with the Big Bang. That isn't to say that the energy released in the Big Bang was created in the first instant of time.

It's just that "time" is a property of the universe as it stands now. It did not always need to be that way. When we talk about "before" the Big Bang, we are speaking about the logical ordering of events.

So saying time is infinite is wrong by the definition of time. That doesn't mean it can't be true that the Big Bang "created" nothing. It's just that we can't speak about what happened before then in terms of time, but only in terms of logical systems.


Well, yes, but that presumes that you buy that the Big Bang created time. And it's certainly plausible; I just don't see it as any more plausible than infinity. I prefer the explanation without a beginning, even if that is a single universe theory (like rubber band theory, or as I understand it at least). But then, I think the idea of a beginning is merely a product of the human ego.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#123 May 12 2011 at 9:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,792 posts
Quote:
Well, yes, but that presumes that you buy that the Big Bang created time. And it's certainly plausible; I just don't see it as any more plausible than infinity. I prefer the explanation without a beginning, even if that is a single universe theory (like rubber band theory, or as I understand it at least). But then, I think the idea of a beginning is merely a product of the human ego.


The concept of spacetime is a very HIGHLY supported physical theory, and I'm not just talking about within philosophy. We've had massive scientific breakthroughs using models that account for time as being another dimension of the universe.

What I find really... odd... is that you claim the idea of a beginning is purely a human construct, yet fail to make the same objection about the human perception of time.

That's the real problem. Humans experience time as being a universally standard system--it always flows at the same speed everywhere. The problem is that physics doesn't support this theory.

Without matter, time CANNOT exist. And matter didn't begin to exist until the 3rd or 4th era after the Big Bang (if I'm remembering my astronomy correctly).
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#124 May 12 2011 at 9:34 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
idiggory wrote:
Quote:
Well, yes, but that presumes that you buy that the Big Bang created time. And it's certainly plausible; I just don't see it as any more plausible than infinity. I prefer the explanation without a beginning, even if that is a single universe theory (like rubber band theory, or as I understand it at least). But then, I think the idea of a beginning is merely a product of the human ego.


The concept of spacetime is a very HIGHLY supported physical theory, and I'm not just talking about within philosophy. We've had massive scientific breakthroughs using models that account for time as being another dimension of the universe.

What I find really... odd... is that you claim the idea of a beginning is purely a human construct, yet fail to make the same objection about the human perception of time.

That's the real problem. Humans experience time as being a universally standard system--it always flows at the same speed everywhere. The problem is that physics doesn't support this theory.

Without matter, time CANNOT exist. And matter didn't begin to exist until the 3rd or 4th era after the Big Bang (if I'm remembering my astronomy correctly).


I understand that; however, that really only makes any case for the existence of the universe as we know it, and not for the state of everything before the known universe or other than the known universe, which is pretty important to the discussion of creation/infinity.

i.e., just because the Big Bang created this space time, doesn't mean that spacetime didn't simultaneously exist elsewhere. In such a case, time is a little more "absolute" than the relativity we associate with it today (but only a little).

I may not be making much sense. Colbert is on. I'll check back later.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#125 May 12 2011 at 9:35 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,963 posts
Quote:
I prefer the explanation without a beginning


When dealing with the difference between the infinite and the finite there is nothing that we (being in the finite) can do on our own that can truly measure the infinite. We can see that it is there and prattle about it (apparently)

Being that there are finite things in existence, which indeed implies space/time, and as such implies a beginning; so within the framework of the concept of where the finite universe came from is one thing entirely separate from trying to debate about the nature of the infinite.

Of COURSE that which is Infinite HAS NO BEGINNING; so the WHY do people love to ask Who created God?
People go at SUCH sad lengths to try to disprove the remote possibility of a sentient creator. If you believe that we in flesh are sentient in electro-chemical impulses then even that cannot discount the notion of a possible sentience existent within the nooks and crannies that exist between the finite and the infinite.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#126 May 12 2011 at 10:13 PM Rating: Decent
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,792 posts
Quote:
I understand that; however, that really only makes any case for the existence of the universe as we know it, and not for the state of everything before the known universe or other than the known universe, which is pretty important to the discussion of creation/infinity.

i.e., just because the Big Bang created this space time, doesn't mean that spacetime didn't simultaneously exist elsewhere. In such a case, time is a little more "absolute" than the relativity we associate with it today (but only a little).


You're looking at it the wrong way, imo.

Firstly, you are changing the very nature of spacetime here. Spacetime is a relationship between objects in OUR universe. Even should other universes exist, the spacetime of those would be fundamentally separate from our own. Why? Because spacetime is the fabric of our universe--it makes no sense to hold that there are two universes that share spacetime, because those would just be the same universe. If spacetime is shared between them, then we have just arbitrarily drawn a line between the two and called one our universe and the other "Universe 2." That's nothing special, and it isn't multiverse theory.

Furthermore, the very way you are talking about these things is worrisome. You speak about spacetime "simultaneously" existing in two places. That's a temporal relation. For that to be the case, there would need to be ANOTHER layer of spacetime that encompasses those two universes. And we run into the same problem as before--it makes no sense for two universes to be connected by time.

Multiverse theory is fine (and there are plenty of physicists that believe it, though none have any real reason for doing so, afaik). But to hold that two universes exist in temporal relation to themselves makes no sense--it's an empty sentence without meaning. But, the thing is, beyond philosophical questions, multiverse theory is useless. By definition of what a universe is, it HAS TO BE completely separate from other universes. Even should multiple universes exist, if they were connected in any way they wouldn't be universes--they'd just be parts of one big universe. And that's not multiverse theory. It's just... weird.

What it sounds like to me is that you want to hold that there are multiple universes, and time progresses equally across all of them? That's just not compatible with current physical theories, where time is an intrinsic quality of this universe, at all. They could be wrong I suppose... but you really have no reason whatsoever for believing that to be the case (rather, you have every reason to believe they ARE correct).

Quote:
When dealing with the difference between the infinite and the finite there is nothing that we (being in the finite) can do on our own that can truly measure the infinite. We can see that it is there and prattle about it (apparently)

Being that there are finite things in existence, which indeed implies space/time, and as such implies a beginning; so within the framework of the concept of where the finite universe came from is one thing entirely separate from trying to debate about the nature of the infinite.

Of COURSE that which is Infinite HAS NO BEGINNING; so the WHY do people love to ask Who created God?
People go at SUCH sad lengths to try to disprove the remote possibility of a sentient creator. If you believe that we in flesh are sentient in electro-chemical impulses then even that cannot discount the notion of a possible sentience existent within the nooks and crannies that exist between the finite and the infinite.


I find it odd that you are claiming humans to be finite creatures, considering you're religious. I definitely think we are finite, and I don't believe in souls at all. But a person who believes he is a soul, rather than a body, should believe he's infinite, no?

And no, there's nothing about spacetime that implies a "beginning." Not in the way you want it, at least. Spacetime regards the relationship of entities within the cosmos. Before (atemporally) spacetime existed, the energy that would later form matter still did. And the laws of physics as we know them demand that it HAD to exist. They don't know what form it existed, no. And they theorize that the universe doesn't have enough mass to be constantly cycling through Big Bangs and Big Crunches. But it's a basic fact about the universe that energy is always conserved.

Furthermore, people only go to great lengths to disprove the existence of God because pricks like you keep trying to shove your misguided, illogical beliefs down our throats. We ENJOY showing you how stupid you are, because you ANNOY us when you try to convert us.

Plus, if we are soulless creatures (that is to say, creatures such that we are only flesh and blood) then it doesn't really matter if there is a god or not is there. You're going to cease to exist when you die, just like the rest of us. Hell, in that case, I'd be HAPPIER believing there wasn't a God (compared to believing there was and cursing him for being such a ****

Finally, "nooks and crannies that exist between the finite and the infinite" doesn't mean anything.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#127 May 12 2011 at 10:44 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:

Firstly, you are changing the very nature of spacetime here. Spacetime is a relationship between objects in OUR universe. Even should other universes exist, the spacetime of those would be fundamentally separate from our own. Why? Because spacetime is the fabric of our universe--it makes no sense to hold that there are two universes that share spacetime, because those would just be the same universe. If spacetime is shared between them, then we have just arbitrarily drawn a line between the two and called one our universe and the other "Universe 2." That's nothing special, and it isn't multiverse theory.


No, I think you initially misunderstood me. What you're saying now is a correct characterization-- there is one universe that operates in the way you just described. It's not multiverse theory. It is more akin to thinking of the two universes (or any number of "universes") as separate galaxies-- distanced by space, but existing on the same plane of spacetime. Time remains relative within each system, but in a more absolute sense is anchored by other systems. i.e., our known universe exists in the same space time but with its own temporal relativity as a system; but could be compared and or experimentally treated as a control to a separate system. It's more a postulation of scale and hierarchy, I guess you could say, that supposes that what we conceive of as the universe is not necessarily a depiction of the highest class or scale of phenomenon.

i.e., different, let's say "densities" of spacetime within a single plane of spacetime, rather than a single and seemingly uniform spacetime. A much more chaotic depiction of spacetime than convention believes.

I'm totally receptive to criticism of the idea, though. I'm well aware that there's no observation that necessarily supports the notion, but I think it's a more logical conception, and given that our observations are extremely limited in scope I'm not generally bothered by the lack of observation.

____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#128 May 12 2011 at 11:01 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
I thought of what is probably a better way to characterize what I'm talking about. When we talk about the creation of everything we know (what we consider the universe) and the Big Bang, we assume that the Big Bang involved all energy. What I'm suggesting is that it only involved a fraction of all energy (or possible not even something that could be expressed as a fraction if it is infinite)-- that other energies and spacetime existed elsewhere simultaneously, very possibly in states similar to what we think of as the universe, and in all manner of states of bang or crunch.

Interesting to at least ponder in this scenario are the implications for the law of conservation of energy/mass when energy/mass are infinite.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#129 May 12 2011 at 11:06 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,963 posts
idiggory wrote:
I find it odd that you are claiming humans to be finite creatures, considering you're religious. I definitely think we are finite, and I don't believe in souls at all. But a person who believes he is a soul, rather than a body, should believe he's infinite, no?


The only thing truly infinite is that which created the finite.
Otherwise you do realize that you are saying that the finite is infinite.. which doesn't make any send. We can get closer to the infinite than we are now but our existence in time/space dictates that we are finite, does it not?

idiggory wrote:
And no, there's nothing about spacetime that implies a "beginning." Not in the way you want it, at least. Spacetime regards the relationship of entities within the cosmos.


Are you kidding me? How does something that must exist in space in time or a time in space not have a beginning? What just because you can't remember the formula for it you are just going ignore that fact that it is you who are now twisting this; as you know what I mean in the concepts of time/space in relation to being finite, you rave on about how your magic laws of heat/energy transfer state that energy is finite and yet in the statements before you speak about concepts of infinity as if they were tangible variables into your equation.
Your so called "basic facts" hold no weight to even the mathematical anomalies in the most basic of quantum mechanical systems.

You seem like you've read a physics book or two.. you never realized that all we can do is observe what is happening and that there is nothing even solid enough to tell us why it happens.. All we can do is record it, and then people like you prefer to worship the recordings rather than the Truth.

idiggory wrote:
Furthermore, people only go to great lengths to disprove the existence of God because pricks like you keep trying to shove your misguided, illogical beliefs down our throats. We ENJOY showing you how stupid you are, because you ANNOY us when you try to convert us.


Your beliefs don't really come any closer to explaining why or how anything exists at all any more than mine.
Even by so and so;s Law the simplest explanation IS that we were created by a Sentient Infinite System rather than... well physics really has nothing tangible do they? The big bang does not cut it.. and the notion that we are a series of infinite branes slapping together just goes overboard because once infinity comes out in your equation you have gone beyond the scope of what is trying to be measured. (YES INfinity meaning Outside of Space/Time.. such as the origins of the dimensions of the crashing branes/planes)


idiggory wrote:
Plus, if we are soulless creatures (that is to say, creatures such that we are only flesh and blood) then it doesn't really matter if there is a god or not is there. You're going to cease to exist when you die, just like the rest of us. Hell, in that case, I'd be HAPPIER believing there wasn't a God (compared to believing there was and cursing him for being such a ****


If you would curse him for being a **** then what you SHOULD do is try to understand that any notion of God that is not God being all fair and righteous is flawed and that your view in flesh is always going to be flawed. It you are only picking a part of the picture to look at and compare it only to the parts that you choose to compare it to then you either are having too much fun playing games with your own existence for the sake of your pride or else very confused. God has one purpose for us and we achieve that purpose from believing in the Resurrection. You reject it because you want it to conform to your puny standards.. all or nothing; right?
idiggory wrote:

Finally, "nooks and crannies that exist between the finite and the infinite" doesn't mean anything.


Are you really so thick? Should I type this slow?
The INFINITE is where everything comes from.... the FINITE is what came from the INFINITE... There is a Limit to that which is Finite..
From that FINITE limit to the INFINITE limit there are things in between.. like Stuff..like universes and dimensions and consciousnesses.. not to mention nooks and crannies...
Are you really so hostile to anything that threatens your viewpoint to argue this?





____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#130 May 13 2011 at 1:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Kelvy wrote:

The crux of Hawkins' work is trying to prove that there was no Big Bang and hence no beginning of everything.


Not true at all. Hawking is most known for his work on black holes & predicting what is now known as Hawking Radiation being emitted from them. In his newest book, The Grand Design, he advocates that because of gravity & the other laws of nature (Using 11 Dimensional M-Theory- which, while accepted by some, doesn't actually have much in terms of proof to back it up)the universe can & will always create itself out of "nothing".

Kelvy wrote:
The problem with the Big Bang was that all of the "intellectuals" of the scientific community were forced to deal the the impossible illogical notion that Something came from Nothing and it left too much room for God theories.. this of course is a threat to the mind of any person claiming to have any scholarly scruples in those time, was it not? It still is. They started desperately digging for a way to have a complete unified theory which did not require a beginning.. Hawkins' is all about that shyte.


Considering the Big Bang happened about 14Billion years ago, & we've got a picture of the cosmic radiation background from about 370K years after that: there's a great deal more that we do know about the Big Bang as opposed to don't. Honestly, its only the earliest moments after the Big Bang (we're talking minutes) where general relativity breaks down & while there are theories, we don't "know" for sure.

When I was religious, I had no problem reconciling the fact that "God" could have created the universe. However, what He set in motion if He did institute the Big Bang, & the very important fact that the universe was NOT perfect (If there didn't happen to be slightly more matter than anti-matter after the Big Bang there really wouldn't be much of anything around today), has since & always will be governed by the laws of nature. All life is special, considering it appears to be incredibly rare throughout the cosmos, but is only the human ego that makes us think we're "more special". Dinosaurs would still rule the Earth if it wasn't for a meteor, but God didn't send that meteor down to kill the Dinosaurs & make us, eventually, the dominant species: Gravity did. God might, if He is/was the creator, have set it all in motion at the moment of the Big Bang, but I doubt He "magicked" the meteor into the Earth that smited the Dinos.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#131 May 13 2011 at 7:55 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,792 posts
Quote:
No, I think you initially misunderstood me. What you're saying now is a correct characterization-- there is one universe that operates in the way you just described. It's not multiverse theory. It is more akin to thinking of the two universes (or any number of "universes") as separate galaxies-- distanced by space, but existing on the same plane of spacetime. Time remains relative within each system, but in a more absolute sense is anchored by other systems. i.e., our known universe exists in the same space time but with its own temporal relativity as a system; but could be compared and or experimentally treated as a control to a separate system. It's more a postulation of scale and hierarchy, I guess you could say, that supposes that what we conceive of as the universe is not necessarily a depiction of the highest class or scale of phenomenon.


Okay, that's what I misunderstood--I thought we were considering multiverse theory. I suppose what I'm taking issue then is your definition of universe. It seems to me that you are just considering them to be really, really, REALLY big galaxies.

But ignoring the phrasing issues, I still don't see how it would work, particularly with reference to spacetime's formation. Because it's a key element of Big Bang theory and the formation of the universe. To suppose that it wasn't created in the Big Bang is to completely dismantle our theories of the Universe's creation (which are quite probably, mathematically, assuming we are correct about the existence of Dark Matter).

So then I thought, "Well, maybe the Big Bangs happened apart and spread into each other, linking different systems of spacetime." But then I remembered that, for them to be apart in the first place, they'd need to exist within a greater spectrum of spacetime, so we face the same issue.

It might be rectifiable--I dunno. I'm just not quite sure how it's possible to explain both the formation of spacetime as well as the formation of universes.

[EDIT]

@ Omega, it isn't even minutes after the big bang. We're talking fractions of seconds, lol.

Edited, May 13th 2011 9:57am by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#132 May 13 2011 at 8:24 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,792 posts
Quote:
The only thing truly infinite is that which created the finite.
Otherwise you do realize that you are saying that the finite is infinite.. which doesn't make any send. We can get closer to the infinite than we are now but our existence in time/space dictates that we are finite, does it not?


Not at all... to all 3 parts.

For one, there is nothing about infinity to suppose that it creates the opposite. The finite might be a portion of the infinite, but the infinite doesn't create it.

Let me put it this way: If God created the universe, and he is the infinite aspect to it, then the universe is god. It's just one small part of him, but it's god nonetheless. YOU don't exist--you are nothing more than a part of the world still. Ignoring the fact that we've arbitrarily claimed that God is infinite (which is really, really weird, btw, because most theists prefer to hold that god isn't a physical or energetic entity, which you would need to be to qualify for any use of the word infinite, which is a relation regarding how far you travel along each axis of the universe).

Quote:
Are you kidding me? How does something that must exist in space in time or a time in space not have a beginning? What just because you can't remember the formula for it you are just going ignore that fact that it is you who are now twisting this; as you know what I mean in the concepts of time/space in relation to being finite, you rave on about how your magic laws of heat/energy transfer state that energy is finite and yet in the statements before you speak about concepts of infinity as if they were tangible variables into your equation.
Your so called "basic facts" hold no weight to even the mathematical anomalies in the most basic of quantum mechanical systems.

You seem like you've read a physics book or two.. you never realized that all we can do is observe what is happening and that there is nothing even solid enough to tell us why it happens.. All we can do is record it, and then people like you prefer to worship the recordings rather than the Truth.


LOLOLOL magic laws of heat/energy transfer.

And just because our mathematical systems aren't perfect yet doesn't mean they won't get better. There's no reason to suppose quantum theory and string theory won't be reconciled. And even if one is wrong, who cares? I hope it's quantum theory, personally. :P

I really like your mis-characterization of academics though. You know why people like me investigate the world? Pretty much this. I think the world is full of amazing things. I could happily spend the rest of my life looking at the stars.

I'll happily spend the rest of my life investigating the world. Because that's all there is. Guess what--the only thing you can know for certain in this world are those things which are a priori. There is NO a priori argument for the existence of God. All logical truths are a priori. If you can come up with a valid a priori argument for the existence of god, kudos. Until then, you are just as subject to the world as the rest of us. At least we are enjoying looking at what actually exists instead of wasting our lives hoping that there's more.

Because let me make this clear--I don't mourn the loss of God. I did once, after I had finally given up trying to believe in him. I don't any more. The universe is more than enough for me. Maybe I'm just not a greedy little bastard.

Quote:
Your beliefs don't really come any closer to explaining why or how anything exists at all any more than mine.
Even by so and so;s Law the simplest explanation IS that we were created by a Sentient Infinite System rather than... well physics really has nothing tangible do they? The big bang does not cut it.. and the notion that we are a series of infinite branes slapping together just goes overboard because once infinity comes out in your equation you have gone beyond the scope of what is trying to be measured. (YES INfinity meaning Outside of Space/Time.. such as the origins of the dimensions of the crashing branes/planes)


That's not true at all. For one thing, you're wrong to assume that there is a why to existence. Existence is not a property something develops--if something exists, it has properties, if it does not exist, it does not have properties. That's the major logical flaw people make with the ontological argument.

And infinity is not an issue at all. Nor does it exist outside spacetime (please try to understand that--there is no infinite without dimensions). Besides, there's nothing about infinity that renders the mind=body argument invalid or unlikely. Unless you mean because your presupposing the existence of the soul. And that's just a stupid thing to do. If you want to believe you have a soul, fine. But it's absolutely retarded to criticize an argument based on your unproven (or hell, or even just unsupported) assumption.

Quote:
If you would curse him for being a **** then what you SHOULD do is try to understand that any notion of God that is not God being all fair and righteous is flawed and that your view in flesh is always going to be flawed. It you are only picking a part of the picture to look at and compare it only to the parts that you choose to compare it to then you either are having too much fun playing games with your own existence for the sake of your pride or else very confused. God has one purpose for us and we achieve that purpose from believing in the Resurrection. You reject it because you want it to conform to your puny standards.. all or nothing; right?


I called God a **** because he's a **** Over 20,000 people just died in Japan. There was a picture in the Times of two parents after they had just found their teenage daughter's body in a smashed car.

If God exists, he did that. He brutally murdered that girl by tossing a 20-foot wave at her. There is no greater good such as it warrants the kind of evil we see every day. And even if there is, the fact remains that God doesn't care about how much you suffer, as long as he gets to complete his science project.

Quote:
Are you really so thick? Should I type this slow?
The INFINITE is where everything comes from.... the FINITE is what came from the INFINITE... There is a Limit to that which is Finite..
From that FINITE limit to the INFINITE limit there are things in between.. like Stuff..like universes and dimensions and consciousnesses.. not to mention nooks and crannies...
Are you really so hostile to anything that threatens your viewpoint to argue this?


God didn't create math--it's a purely logical, a priori process (and numbers are generally considered necessary entities as a result. Even if god exists, numbers would exist even if god didn't). Did you know that, between 0 and 1, there's an infinite amount of numbers? Yup. Know what's even crazier? The set of those numbers is held to be larger than many other infinite sets.

And that's logically provable.

And I'm a philosophy major--believe me, I am not hostile to anything that threatens my viewpoints. I happily walk into classes and have my views debated every day. And I love it.

The thing is, I don't like you. You're evangelical and illogical, trying to shove your religion down our throats and acting like those that disagree with you do so because they're stupid. That's what I take issue with. You don't even understand the arguments you are trying to draw on.

Plus, you dissed logic.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#133 May 13 2011 at 11:11 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,277 posts
A poem:

God's laughter is math
an infinity that defines universal laws

and time is a product of
small minds trapped in three dimensions

nothing is not
it never was

*

This convo is interesting, I would actually like to be a useful contributor, but I am at work and need to write some newsletter bits.

I would have to say my beliefs seem to be a mix of Kelv's, Diggory's and Kachi's. Each of you brings up points I can agree with but each of you has aspects to your beliefs I don't agree with.

I agree on some level with Kelv about the existence of spirit and purpose in the universe, though I disagree with the largely christian lens they are putting on it.

I agree with Diggory about a lot the logical/scientific arguments he is putting forward and such but disagree with his views on God (especially the whole "God is a **** thing, because it is a refutation of a very specific conceptualization of god which I vehemently disagree with - ie. God as a personality who is responsible for shaking the earth and wiping people out etc).

I need to see more about where Kachi is going with his views on infinite regression and the unity of spacetime, but I get the sense he is trying to express something which I would be inclined to agree with
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#134 May 13 2011 at 12:01 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,792 posts
When I use the term God, I use it to mean "an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-benevolent creator."

Applying the Argument from Evil to that leads me to conclude that, if God does exist, he is not one of those 3 things.

So, to be fair, "God" isn't a **** By definition.

But if something like God exists, he would still maintain those qualities, but have to sacrifice one (and the degree of that sacrifice is in proportion to the amount of preventable evil in the world).

I'm a determinist, so it makes no sense to axe omniscience (to me). If everything is predetermined, it makes sense for a deity to be able to follow those threads (regardless of whether or not he intended anything) and see the future. So I wouldn't touch that.

Ditto for omnipotence. As a determinist, it seems like altering events would be exceedingly simple (assuming you had enough power to CREATE the universe in the first place).

So, I'm inclined to say that a God-like entity cannot be all-good, if this much evil exists in the world.

So to speak correctly, I should have said that "Any creator would a **** "Any God is a **** is, by definition, wrong.

You could disagree with me about the scope of evil in the world, of course. But, as a determinist, I reject free will, so moral evil=natural evil. And I see absolutely no reason some people/animals need to suffer horrible atrocities at the hands of nature. The standard theistic arguments are that they either deserved it (a la Sodom) or that it was necessary for a greater good.

I refuse to accept the possibility of the first. Natural disasters affect everyone, regardless of how moral they are. Infants die, children die, adults die, priests die, murderers die, etc.

My rejection of the second one is due to the fact that, in seeking the greater good, God doesn't take heed of the good of persons as people. He merely tabulates the ends, with the means always being justified if we end up with an overall good history. Treating people merely as a means to an end is one of the biggest controversies in ethics, I'll admit. But theists generally hold that it is absolutely unacceptable--you should always consider a person an end and never as a means unless they are also the end.

So I really see no reason to accept the creator, if there is one, as being benevolent. And the fact that he wants us to worship him (under pain of damnation) just makes him look vain to me. A truly good god wouldn't care if his people worshiped or loved him--he'd just want them to have the happiest, fullest lives he could.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#135 May 13 2011 at 12:36 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,277 posts
Yeah, I clearly perceive the idea of god (and "evil" for that matter) differently than you do.

I wouldn't necessarily ascribe benevolence to god either, but that is because I don't conceive of god as having a personality.

I am more inclined to see god as a force of nature. Like an earthquake. I don't think earthquakes or the planet is evil because people die and suffer etc.

**** happens. Malevolence requires intent, as does benevolence. I don't see god as having an intent - or at least not one that extends to our personal lives.

I would only ascribe benevolence to god insofar as existence is a gift, therefore the power that is responsible for existence is benevolent insofar as we have received this gift.

To put it in human terms, if you uncle gives you a bicycle for your birthday because you want it - that is pretty benevolent.

If you take that bicycle and go riding and get hit by a car and are horribly maimed - that doesn't change the benevolence of the original gift. Bad stuff happens, but it is not necessarily evil.

As for evil itself - evil is only possible with intent. A person torturing someone is evil. A tsunami is not. Evil does exist, but only because we choose to express it. A world without evil is possible, but we don't choose to create that world (or from my limited vision of the totality of existence and the universe, we haven't yet)

I am sort of a determinist myself - but that is because I believe in a unified, unchanging universe where motion is an illusion of consciousness. AKA everything that has ever happened or will happen is existent in this moment, but we are only capable of seeing as an unfolding as opposed to as a totality-in-the-moment.

____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#136 May 13 2011 at 1:27 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,277 posts
I see god as:

Quote:
The force that through the green fuse drives the flower


____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#137 May 13 2011 at 2:24 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,792 posts
Does your conception of God include consciousness?

Quote:
If you take that bicycle and go riding and get hit by a car and are horribly maimed - that doesn't change the benevolence of the original gift. Bad stuff happens, but it is not necessarily evil.

As for evil itself - evil is only possible with intent. A person torturing someone is evil. A tsunami is not. Evil does exist, but only because we choose to express it. A world without evil is possible, but we don't choose to create that world (or from my limited vision of the totality of existence and the universe, we haven't yet)


1. It would be a different story if your uncle KNEW you were going to get hit by a car.

2. I disagree completely. Evil cannot be fully linked to intent, or else you end up with a massive moral problem. Consider these examples:

-A child brings a gun to school and kills another child, without understanding what guns are, what they do, or understanding death.

This, to me, is evil. The child is blameless as far as I'm concerned--the evil doesn't have a focus. But it's evil, nonetheless. Note that I'm using evil as a noun here, not an adjective. That's important. The act isn't evil, the child isn't evil, but evil exists in this scenario. There is needless suffering of innocent people.

-A fawn is running from a forest fire, but ends up suffering from serious burns. It slowly dies an extremely painful death, alone. It is unable to comprehend death, but it feels great fear.

This also seems to be a scenario that contains evil. That fawn could have died quickly and relatively painlessly, but instead had to suffer and die slowly.

-A doctor attempts to cure a patient's illness and must choose between two drugs to do so. He picks the one more likely to cure the disease, but the patient suffers an allergic reaction and dies.

3. Assuming you do believe in a conception of god that includes consciousness, the fact remains that he chose to let these events happen. Even if he is not trying to maliciously hurt us, it doesn't change the fact that he didn't bother trying to stop them either. We blame those who do the same thing (for instance, not saving a child that is drowning in a nearby fountain). It doesn't matter that you didn't intend for these things to happen, or that you weren't acting maliciously--you still chose to ignore the moral course of action.

And remember that god, as a creator, could have made the world such as these things never happened.

If a god like the one you are describing exists, then I will take pleasure in not worshiping him. He doesn't deserve it.

[EDIT]

Also, I'm really confused by your conception of god. Are you just equating him to... the universe? I really don't get it.

Edited, May 13th 2011 4:25pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#138 May 13 2011 at 3:12 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,277 posts
Ah, well we will have to disagree about evil. Those examples you used were what I would call "tragedy" rather than "evil."

They are very sad cases, but there is nothing malicious about them. The first example could have some element of evil in it because of the gun - if it was bought to commit crimes it would be tainted with evil, but if it was bought by someone out of fear, then again, the whole thing falls into tragedy as far as I am concerned.

Suffering is unfortunate, but not always evil. It just is. We suffer because we evolved with a central nervous system that uses pain to help preserve us. Unfortunately, a side effect of that evolutionary tactic is an element of unavoidable suffering.

I conceive of god AS consciousness and AS life force (AS the force that through the green fuse drives the flower)

Not as something separate from us, it lies within us and in everything. So perhaps you could say I believe god is the universe but, it is a bit different than that. Perhaps it would be better expressed as I believe god is math, is poetry, is beauty, is the ineffable power that turns dust into flesh and creates flowers from primordial soup.

Without god, the universe would have no ordering principle, stars and planets would never emerge - life would not be.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#139 May 13 2011 at 3:16 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
This thread is evil.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#140 May 13 2011 at 3:21 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Evil is this thread.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#141 May 13 2011 at 4:10 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:

Okay, that's what I misunderstood--I thought we were considering multiverse theory. I suppose what I'm taking issue then is your definition of universe. It seems to me that you are just considering them to be really, really, REALLY big galaxies.

But ignoring the phrasing issues, I still don't see how it would work, particularly with reference to spacetime's formation. Because it's a key element of Big Bang theory and the formation of the universe. To suppose that it wasn't created in the Big Bang is to completely dismantle our theories of the Universe's creation (which are quite probably, mathematically, assuming we are correct about the existence of Dark Matter).

So then I thought, "Well, maybe the Big Bangs happened apart and spread into each other, linking different systems of spacetime." But then I remembered that, for them to be apart in the first place, they'd need to exist within a greater spectrum of spacetime, so we face the same issue.

It might be rectifiable--I dunno. I'm just not quite sure how it's possible to explain both the formation of spacetime as well as the formation of universes.


Don't worry, I take issue with the definition of universe, too :P The problem is that when we talk about the universe, there is always the assumption that everything we consider the universe is all that there is. e.g., this universe is thought to be a flat one, but maybe there are similar systems of galaxies out there that aren't flat at all. There is so much about our own universe that is imperceptible to us it's at least fallacious to assume that what we think of as the universe is truly everything there is.

As for the logistics, I understand how this is a challenging concept to integrate into the contemporary understanding of spacetime and Big Bang theories of physics, and unfortunately I may not be able to articulate a good case for it (and it's certainly possible that there's not a good case TO make). Obviously the first possibility is that our understanding of the relationship between the Big Bang and spacetime is fundamentally flawed-- that spacetime exists separate from the energies involved in the Big Bang. My personal suspicion is, as I alluded to earlier, spacetime always exists, but in different densities. During a Big Crunch, spacetime is spread extremely thin around the crunch, perhaps even existing in pockets (via something more reminiscent of multiverse theory, perhaps).

A lot of this is conjecture around the idea that the fatality of the universe is some type of Big Rip, which last I checked is generally considered the more plausible scenario. But I may be mis-weighing evidence to suit the hypothesis; I don't know.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#142 May 13 2011 at 5:07 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,963 posts
OmegaV wrote:
the universe can & will always create itself out of "nothing"


It just seems to me that the universe cannot really create anything as it also is something that was/is created and this "nothing" that we speak of "something" "coming from" is actually another word for "inifinity" or rather both of them are words for something that cannot be comprehended directly..(obviously I'm going with God there)


We talk about the Big Bang happening 14Billion years ago etc.... but if it's creation introduced Time and Space into existence the isn't it plausible to conclude that this "event" is actually still happening or that it just happened... I mean; when you look at it from the view that BEFORE It there was NO Time.. then Time from our own standpoint becomes rather pliable does it not? and then so does Space.
understand me?

____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#143 May 13 2011 at 7:12 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,963 posts
idiggory wrote:
For one, there is nothing about infinity to suppose that it creates the opposite. The finite might be a portion of the infinite, but the infinite doesn't create it.


You have stated that infinity has an opposite. I assume you would simply say that the opposite of infinity is NON-infinity. I would not expect you to think that finite can really be the opposite in this context as finite is being used to describe the created time/space existence and everything in it rather than as you describe later "a relation regarding how far you travel along each axis of the universe"
Anyway; this is why I also majored in Philosophy and also why I hated it and learned to hate all philosophy. I don't mean hate it on an intellectual level; on an intellectual level there is nothing I love more... but on a spiritual level philosophy is nothing more than a bunch of people digging holes to nowhere.. sometimes people share holes and keep on digging.. but they go nowhere.. ever..
It's fun to read about what people think and it's even fun to do it.. go figure.. But there always comes a point where you realize you will never fully know the full truth as you are and that you may be stuck as you are until you die; never knowing that thing that you were trying to figure out but couldn't even figure out what it was that you were trying to figure out. After this you either keep banging your head against the wall and pretending like it doesn't matter because we ARE just matter.. or take the leap of faith. (I'm sure you've studied the existentialists)

idiggory wrote:
If God created the universe, and he is the infinite aspect to it, then the universe is god. It's just one small part of him, but it's god nonetheless. YOU don't exist--you are nothing more than a part of the world still.


I agree that God would be the infinite aspect but the time/space universe is a step(or 11?) removed from God because it has mass and it takes time for that mass to go through space as either matter or energy in whatever pattern that it DOES; it's still In space/time and hence still not infinite as a unit and as such it is separate from God but ONLY in the most elementary way.. as yes God's omnipotence etc has complete control over all of the mass and space in time... and as YOU say WE are subordinate to this and then you say that because of this it is all meaningless except to experience the beauty of existence and smile and just wait til the end and here we are and there we go..
My suggestion that that most of the universe IS as you say.. including our minds and bodies.. these things are Finite in their space/time form.. still with me? However, that which makes us different from animals, vegetables, and minerals is really just our ability to judge what is Positive and what is Negative..( positive and negative to what? ) Well who cares.. I'm sure you would not argue against one of the most elemental phenomena put into play; positive and negative.. and even if we tried to stretch and skew it over to the particle physics side or meta-physical psycho ranting I actually think that it all still applies.
I expect you also preach that we are the same as animals and unique in no way.

idiggory wrote:

Because let me make this clear--I don't mourn the loss of God. I did once, after I had finally given up trying to believe in him. I don't any more. The universe is more than enough for me. Maybe I'm just not a greedy little bastard.


I'm sure you're not too interested in why I believe what I believe and simply just go with "He's a just **** who can't think for himself".
You say you mourned the loss of God once; I don't surely know what that means and obviously I'm not going to pretend that I can ever talk anyone into believing in God.. but I have found that most of the disbelief comes from a standard of preconceived notions coupled with various emotional blockages... People have an idea of how things should be.. of what a God should or should not do based on their own limited perspectives and take the great plunge of materialism.

I argued AGAINST Abrahamic religions actually all organized religion most of my life; and MUCH of it on this forum. I did however argue for the existence of a sentient range of entities that existed in all of the various dimensions of energies that existed and that our thoughts were intertwined with it..etc etc So I guess you would say I was already crazy anyway..
I would never have believed in a MANmade writing or give any credence at all to something that I didn't experience with my own consciousness.. But even now I still don't... No that is why I said that IF, that's an IF that which created us actually wanted to communicate it to us for a purpose then HOW would this happen? 1) Program it into us.. which would make us cease to be "us" or 2) Put it into something external that would be preserved all throughout known history.
I realized that if I could believe that a God created the heavens and earth then I could really believe that He could sustain a story through time.
I guess I'm digressing.. But told me a year and a half ago I would be praising Jesus.. I'd have laughed in your face..

idiggory wrote:

For one thing, you're wrong to assume that there is a why to existence. Existence is not a property something develops--if something exists, it has properties, if it does not exist, it does not have properties.


I think I added "why" just to **** you off.. but the How is the more substantial. You see particles doing a certain thing and have no idea how it's actually happening.. BUT you slap a label on it and throw it in a textbook and science becomes something more akin to legalism.. Just look at the Fundamental Forces... all they are are descriptions nothing more... You may say "well what the @#%^ else are they supposed to be?" but one thing they are not going to ever be are giving up the mystery of how they exist..
Gluons? really? LOL
Don't get me wrong; I do not doubt physics as much as it may seem..after all we did make atomic bomb.. a proud moment indeed; but science is by its very nature cannot answer the ultimate questions.. by its very nature science must always ask questions.. so the concept of God-Creator in a scientific viewpoint is never going to work. If God is the Sentient Prime Mover of Time/Space then God would be the ultimate answer.. but science is not a tool for ultimate answers is it? We can keep building it up higher and higher to see farther and farther away but we can never get there that way.

idiggory wrote:

(please try to understand that--there is no infinite without dimensions).


I also understand that he kind of infinite you are talking about is an anomaly in a mathematical calculation and not referring to something with no beginning or no end.

idiggory wrote:
there's nothing about infinity that renders the mind=body argument invalid or unlikely. Unless you mean because your presupposing the existence of the soul. And that's just a stupid thing to do.


Of course I'm getting at a soul.. sure I get that you can't accept it because it's one of those things you can't have proven to you.
Body is obvious, Mind is your conscious thoughts within standard time/space, Soul is everything else as close to the infinite as possible that is still You as an entity, beyond This Particular Space/Time.

idiggory wrote:

the fact remains that God doesn't care about how much you suffer, as long as he gets to complete his science project.


Actually..

-The Suffering is the nature of who we are
-To prevent us from suffering would remove who we are an negate the purpose
-If this weren't happening then we wouldn't exist.. so if you don't want to exist.. well, sorry
-IN THE CONTEXT of people being created with the plan in mind of those people dwelling amidst a perfected universe

People are being given the way to this AS Themselves (separate from God) and yet separate from their old time/space-as-we-know-it(fleshly) nature which is wholly evil. Evil doesn't mean you rape puppies.. evil means turned away from the Light of Creation that desires you to turn to it of you own volition.
The things that are happening on this world are the result of our existence; it is the nature of our existence.
We dwell in entropy.
But you said you think you had God and then lost it and then tried to find beauty. My suggestion would have been to look at all of the beauty of the universe and find God there and don't get upset because you can't visualize an abstract.
idiggory wrote:

The thing is, I don't like you. You're evangelical and illogical, trying to shove your religion down our throats and acting like those that disagree with you do so because they're stupid. That's what I take issue with. You don't even understand the arguments you are trying to draw on.


I'm actually kind of shocked you're even responding to me at this point; but I am not professing any "religion". I hate religions, and if I were trying to shove what I am trying to discuss down anyones throats I would be spamming it and lamely trying to quote scriptures to people who don't believe them.. I know this subject has been thrown here time and time again; but now that I feel that I know what I know I would be a fool to not present it here. Here is a place where I know people like you will speak their mind to the utmost degree and here we are. For years I have respected the viewpoints and debate dynamics here; so if you're whining because my making someone look stupid is troubling to you then you must be new here.

And I WROTE the fuckin' arguments you are presenting ;P


Edited, May 14th 2011 8:44pm by Kelvyquayo
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#144 May 14 2011 at 12:06 AM Rating: Good
Kelvy wrote:
It just seems to me that the universe cannot really create anything as it also is something that was/is created and this "nothing" that we speak of "something" "coming from" is actually another word for "inifinity" or rather both of them are words for something that cannot be comprehended directly..(obviously I'm going with God there)

We talk about the Big Bang happening 14Billion years ago etc.... but if it's creation introduced Time and Space into existence the isn't it plausible to conclude that this "event" is actually still happening or that it just happened... I mean; when you look at it from the view that BEFORE It there was NO Time.. then Time from our own standpoint becomes rather pliable does it not? and then so does Space.
understand me?


If you were to take a room full of oxygen, most of the time the individual 02 molecules would be uniform throughout the room. However, once in a great while(like, trillions of years), their gravity would all put them in a corner of the room. After that, they'd spread out again & the cycle would repeat.

If apply this to our known universe from our perspective: at one point "everything" was in the corner (the singularity), things have & are still spreading out (& the "arrow" of time is moving forward). However, at some point that expansion will stop (& for a random moment, there will be no "arrow" of time) & everything will start coming back together (the "arrow" of time goes the other way now). Then, the cycle repeats itself. From our perspective, there's only one big bang. However, "ours" is possibly one of many.

The Catholic Church is not a fan of this theory, which is an extension of M-Theory, as it has no need for a single creation event (Or "creator" for that matter). But, from a physics standpoint, it makes sense not only because the math that we do have on M-Theory holds up (Admittedly, until we have any way of observing the "higher" dimensions of M-Theory it isn't actually observable though), nothing in physics can account for how time began. So, it makes sense that perhaps time doesn't actually have a beginning, or an end.

____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#145 May 14 2011 at 7:48 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
Idiggory & Kachi, re: Time

You guys should watch Wonders of the Universe. A BBC edudoccumentary(I think I made that word up) by Professor Brain Cox.

Here's a few videos discussing the relationship between time and entropy: Arrow of time & Thermodynamics.

When you understand what time actually is, you will see why the question "What happened before the 'Big Bang'" is nonsensical.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#146 May 14 2011 at 8:01 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
The Catholic Church is not a fan of this theory,
Or any theory in general.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#147 May 14 2011 at 8:09 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Omegavegeta wrote:
The Catholic Church is not a fan of this theory,
Or any theory in general.
It took them 359 to admit Galileo was right, so I wouldn't hold my breath about them agreeing to any modern science.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#148 May 14 2011 at 7:22 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,963 posts

Omegavegeta wrote:
Kelvy wrote:
It just seems to me that the universe cannot really create anything as it also is something that was/is created and this "nothing" that we speak of "something" "coming from" is actually another word for "inifinity" or rather both of them are words for something that cannot be comprehended directly..(obviously I'm going with God there)

We talk about the Big Bang happening 14Billion years ago etc.... but if it's creation introduced Time and Space into existence the isn't it plausible to conclude that this "event" is actually still happening or that it just happened... I mean; when you look at it from the view that BEFORE It there was NO Time.. then Time from our own standpoint becomes rather pliable does it not? and then so does Space.
understand me?


If you were to take a room full of oxygen, most of the time the individual 02 molecules would be uniform throughout the room. However, once in a great while(like, trillions of years), their gravity would all put them in a corner of the room. After that, they'd spread out again & the cycle would repeat.

If apply this to our known universe from our perspective: at one point "everything" was in the corner (the singularity), things have & are still spreading out (& the "arrow" of time is moving forward). However, at some point that expansion will stop (& for a random moment, there will be no "arrow" of time) & everything will start coming back together (the "arrow" of time goes the other way now). Then, the cycle repeats itself. From our perspective, there's only one big bang. However, "ours" is possibly one of many.

The Catholic Church is not a fan of this theory, which is an extension of M-Theory, as it has no need for a single creation event (Or "creator" for that matter). But, from a physics standpoint, it makes sense not only because the math that we do have on M-Theory holds up (Admittedly, until we have any way of observing the "higher" dimensions of M-Theory it isn't actually observable though), nothing in physics can account for how time began. So, it makes sense that perhaps time doesn't actually have a beginning, or an end.



I think the corner portion of your analogy wouldn't be needed in my view as I tend to picture is more as time flowing in all directions from a certain point; from "creation's" point of view it is the whole universe unfolding but depending on 'where/when'(space/time) in the unfolding of existence your perspective is and how your "person" which exists in this earthly layer of things is trying to relate to you "self" which exists in another layers of things..which is where the body/mind/soul comes in.. the soul would be yourself that is closer to the infinite(Source) side of things.

My problem with your pendulum of creation and destruction theory is that its properties imply a system. It seems that anything that is a system implies a subordination to space/time; such as "What set this system in motion?". Perhaps there is some fundamental element to it that I am missing; it has been a while since I've studied String Theory as I'm sure I remember that its purpose was to profess that lacking of a need for a beginning.. but I always took it as simply the stings which existed still needed to exist with some commonality that gave them some relation to one another which it didn't seem to address very well. I'm on board with the rolled up layers of dimensions; I'm on board that there a many exquisite things that exist in the universe and beyond.. but none of that still seems to prove that it does not require to have been created.. because anything that is finite such as a system would indeed require to have been created. But if you can explain it to me I'd love to know it.
As far as math and physics; most things that we see in these kinds of physic problems are only theoretical math.. the only reason we use it, of course, is because it works.. but we only see the result of it, we can't really see what is really happening when it comes down to it.

My view had always been that this "singularity" is a compound unit of infinite potentials which when the "big Bang" emanated from it the potentials then came to be realized in the form of all of existence that we know; and this would even include all of the materials discussed in M-theory.. because from where our world is in this creation even is on the outer shell of it... when we study the sub atomic level and beyond we are trying to look to the core of that creation event.. but even the galaxies and stars and background radiation are all emanations from the creation event..
And the closer things get away from the big "zero-point" then the faster they begin to fall apart.. or as astrophysicist say "expanding".

So this infinite source from which everything is springing is everything that the physical universe is not and yet it is still inextricably a part of it; so it is much more than we, being here anchored in the finite, can ever grasp.. but it seems folly to doubt that it could have consciousness because even we have consciousness.

____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#149 May 14 2011 at 7:58 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,963 posts
Sorry for butting into this discussion here :D

Olorinus the Vile wrote:

I wouldn't necessarily ascribe benevolence to god either, but that is because I don't conceive of god as having a personality.

I am more inclined to see god as a force of nature. Like an earthquake. I don't think earthquakes or the planet is evil because people die and suffer etc.

**** happens. Malevolence requires intent, as does benevolence. I don't see god as having an intent - or at least not one that extends to our personal lives.

I would only ascribe benevolence to god insofar as existence is a gift, therefore the power that is responsible for existence is benevolent insofar as we have received this gift.

To put it in human terms, if you uncle gives you a bicycle for your birthday because you want it - that is pretty benevolent.

If you take that bicycle and go riding and get hit by a car and are horribly maimed - that doesn't change the benevolence of the original gift. Bad stuff happens, but it is not necessarily evil.

As for evil itself - evil is only possible with intent. A person torturing someone is evil. A tsunami is not. Evil does exist, but only because we choose to express it. A world without evil is possible, but we don't choose to create that world (or from my limited vision of the totality of existence and the universe, we haven't yet)

I am sort of a determinist myself - but that is because I believe in a unified, unchanging universe where motion is an illusion of consciousness. AKA everything that has ever happened or will happen is existent in this moment, but we are only capable of seeing as an unfolding as opposed to as a totality-in-the-moment.




I wouldn't necessarily ascribe benevolence to god either, but that is because I don't conceive of god as having a personality.
question: if you and I and even my cat have a personality then why wouldn't god have one? Personality, a lot like personification I suppose can be pretty relative. You might disagree that the way I decorate my house has personality.. But if you mean sentience.. and sentience pretty much seem to be the highest state that a substance can have.. than what do you think about god having a personality or just being a series of accidents?


**** happens. Malevolence requires intent, as does benevolence. I don't see god as having an intent - or at least not one that extends to our personal lives.


It seems that the intent of god in matters of the universe would be beyond us; In looking at all of that harm that happens in the world.. If this world did not have such horrible things in it.. then the eternal harmony that awaits those who Love God could never exist. Of course this sounds awful like doom and gloom to you perhaps.. but then ask yourself why a person would not Love God.. As I've said.. evil is not a thing that is done to people by other people or even by God to people.. evil is a state which exist separate from God but it is not the opposite of God.

I would only ascribe benevolence to god insofar as existence is a gift, therefore the power that is responsible for existence is benevolent insofar as we have received this gift.
This is very true. Of course then one may wonder if that which gave you this great gift is simply finished with you or has somehow put His relationship with you on hold while you are living on earth. Enlightenment is different than salvation; neither is required for the other.

If you take that bicycle and go riding and get hit by a car and are horribly maimed - that doesn't change the benevolence of the original gift. Bad stuff happens, but it is not necessarily evil.

The conflict that which idiggory has pointed out is that if God gave you this gift but already knew that you were going to die from it (because God knows everything) then it is essentially wrong to let that happen.. I guess I would shift it to:
He give you a bicycle and tells you not to go play in the street.. he says you can play anywhere but play in the street... but you can't help BUT to play in the street every time... but you HAD to be able to make a choice so that when the time came to actually choose the gift-giver over death FOREVER you had to understand the choice that you were making... this is of course on a macrocosmic scale I'm talking LOL

I am sort of a determinist myself - but that is because I believe in a unified, unchanging universe where motion is an illusion of consciousness. AKA everything that has ever happened or will happen is existent in this moment, but we are only capable of seeing as an unfolding as opposed to as a totality-in-the-moment.

I would have totally agreed with you (maybe) a short time ago..
I would simply add to this that the only thing truly unchanging is God. and God makes the finite universe change to help us finite creatures that he created to reach closer to the infinite place where God is. That all any of this is and all any of this has ever been and ever will be.










____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#150 May 14 2011 at 9:00 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
50 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
I guess I would shift it to:
He give you a bicycle and tells you not to go play in the street.. he says you can play anywhere but play in the street... but you can't help BUT to play in the street every time... but you HAD to be able to make a choice so that when the time came to actually choose the gift-giver over death FOREVER you had to understand the choice that you were making... this is of course on a macrocosmic scale I'm talking LOL


I was going to show you how this is still a false analogy, but then I decided it wasn't worth my time. . . .

Edited, May 14th 2011 11:00pm by kiworrior
____________________________
"Cogito Ergo Sum" - Rene Descartes
#151 May 15 2011 at 1:14 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,963 posts
kiworrior wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
I guess I would shift it to:
He give you a bicycle and tells you not to go play in the street.. he says you can play anywhere but play in the street... but you can't help BUT to play in the street every time... but you HAD to be able to make a choice so that when the time came to actually choose the gift-giver over death FOREVER you had to understand the choice that you were making... this is of course on a macrocosmic scale I'm talking LOL


I was going to show you how this is still a false analogy, but then I decided it wasn't worth my time. . . .


obviously nothing can be compared to God.. but there is also usually a problem with:
- God is still to blame for the death because He set the rules in place, created and road and created the situation
- If God was truly loving He still should would not allow the accident to occur
- God designed us to make the choice that we would make to reject Him so God is to blame for our sin

The crux is the fact that we were made separate from God (hence evil) is the very thing that gives us our will to reject God for time/space.. but without that state of being we would not be capable of attaining the potential for which we were created and still be free sentient agents.. we would be instead like God's sock-puppets.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 44 All times are in CDT
Aripyanfar, Poldaran, Anonymous Guests (42)