|
|
| You believe in God? |
| Yes |
|
44% |
[ 52 ] |
| No |
|
26% |
[ 31 ] |
| Hard to explain |
|
29% |
[ 35 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 118 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 9:32 pm
Regarding Time. Quote: Now remember, by definition time is a part of this universe. And when I say that, I mean "all time" - by definition. Quote: By definition of "this universe" it includes time and space. Thus by saying that God is in time means He is not God. Ah, like I said with the existence of a higher plane, this is only as far as we are familiar with. Time as a concept, that is, one event preceding another, can exist outside of our universe. The Big Bang is a definite beginning, as far as we can scientifically observe in any case, but what happened before? If you were to take the seat next to god and observe, what would exist before the BBU? Obviously nothing in this universe, but something else had to yield it. You call this "God," I call it ambiguous. While time for this universe most assuredly started with the Big Bang, the "time" that I'm referring to is that which exists outside of the time that we are familiar with. Think of absolute time as a potential infinite, that is, continuously adding one event before the next, like retracing one's steps through the house. Logical deductions are not valid proof, only evidence. While you may suspect that the neighborhood kids stole the pie off of your window sill, and can logically deduct that since they like pie and have a penchant for mischief it is probable that they took it, this does not actually prove it. Physical evidence is required to more definitively support the case. You are correct that we do not have proof of the Big Bang in the physical sense, only the logical deduction that since we observe the objects of the universe expanding away from a single point of origin (I am, by the way, quite familiar with the Doppler effect and the phenomena of the spreading universe). I believe in this theory because we can observe it and correlate it with scientific data. The actual "willing" of the universe into being, however, regardless of the process, would need observable evidence of the universe before it was created. Do you see the impossibility of this? I highly doubt that we will get anywhere even close to this level of scientific sophistication during our lifetimes, if ever. The only "proof" you offer for the universe being willed into existence is the a) logical deduction that the universe DID start, which isn't actually proving or supporting that is was "willed" to start, and the Kalam argument, which even states that it doesn't intend to have definitive proof. Quote: First, scientific arguments for theism do not intend to draw absolute conclusions, but to establish the likely probability that God exists. The Kalam argument assumes that the laws of nature had to have been created with the universe, but again these are only the laws of nature AS WE KNOW THEM. A natural cause could have created the universe if it was natural in the space in which our universe exists, but would be "supernatural" in our universe. Craig It hardly needs to be said that this is a piece of speculative metaphysics no less objectionable than theism; indeed, I should argue, more objectionable because the reality of time is ultimately denied as all dimensions, temporal as well as spatial, are subsumed into superspace. Craig is correct in assuming that this kind of speculation is certainly on-par with theism, which is why I subscribe to neither. The Kalam argument is certainly a rational one, but it still is, in my opinion, a little short-sighted, assuming that the totality of existence, time, and so forth, are wholly contained within this universe. Likewise, the paradoxical concept of ever increasingly large universes (which may or may not be an actual infinite) is just as hard to swallow. So I sit, and I contemplate, and I debate. But in the end, none of it really sticks to me and I'm not completely bothered by this, as my focus is far more related to the present than it is on what possibly happened in the past. I'm typing out this last part as a supplement, explaining my personal views on how we will never know the "truth" of the origins, and can rely only on inference, logical deduction, and a leap of faith. It is not my aim that this deter you from debating with me, on the contrary I hope that this persuades you to my side (or lack of sides) of the proverbial fence, a state of realization that nothing is wholly provable or absolute, and that it always was, is, and will be a matter of interpretation, reason, and presentation. My goodness do I love rhetoric.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 10:13 pm
Regarding Perception (not quite self-fulfilling prophecies, but similar)
Improbable is subjective, and I can tell you that with the kind of student I am, it was HIGHLY improbable that I would be admitted. But, as are most things, it is a matter of opinion. You claim that it was highly improbable for your examples, but there is no way of measuring it as such, as causality in the real world is ridiculously complex and it is impossible to account for everything.
Now, scientifically impossible (defined loosely as having less that a 0.001% chance of occurring) is very different from actually impossible. Statistically speaking, it is scientifically impossible for someone to win the lottery, and yet it STILL HAPPENS (albeit not often). Does this mean that every time someone has won it was the result of divine intervention? One could make that argument, I suppose, but I see it having a difficult time sticking. Simply because something is scientifically impossible doesn't mean that it is actually impossible (wow, I'm using the Kalam language much more often than I expected, thanks for introducing it to me). Something that is actually impossible would be something like quantitative mathematics saying that 1+1=3, or that, under current and "normal" physical laws as we understand them, an apple will fall up from the tree and we will eventually have an orbital ring rivaling that of Saturn.
My apologies for the lack of clarity, my argument was not that the human will was the cause of improbable events, but that how you perceive it will determine whether it was improbable or not. Solutions are constantly present, and your view on your situation matter greatly to whether you consider yourself "lucky" or "resourceful." Also, it depends on just how outside the influence of yourself that the solution presented itself. In the case of the church, if they advertise and ask for money from the congregation, especially if they advertise more "encouragingly" during times of exceptional poverty, that would explain their perseverance. One could also say that the level of money they averaged was normal or to be expected for their area and other outside influences, as was their monetary ability to hang on in tough times.
As for the phenomena of Jesus Christ and the resurrection, there is a much larger argument, and I simultaneously thank you for reminding me about that point and apologize for forgetting about it. To be brief, I do not believe that he actually rose from the dead, but it is an argument which I will have to save for later. Please do not interpret this as me being unable or unwilling to contest the argument, only that I have insufficient time and energy to do so, and that prior obligations which I have been procrastinating are calling me. I'm also trying to reduce my internet usage, as it seems I've developed a pretty nasty compulsion, so I may not be as prompt or often as I'd like. But fear not, as I assure that I will get to it all in due time, and will most assuredly let you know when I do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 10:47 pm
souloe @Rioku: say, this is off topic but...were you in a guild at ffa at one point? But anyways, here's my own perspective on what you said. 1. faithI am not believing blindly. I am, in fact, 100% sure God exists. I'm sure you don't want huge explainations as to why but in case you want to see the logic that proves God 100% real, you can always challenge me to prove it to you. 2. your lifeThat is a point that I agree with you on. You are fully capable of choosing what to do with your life. That is free will. Of course, choosing to walk off a cliff will lead to bad result and making other choices will also be followed by corresponding effects. I can tell you that walking off the cliff is bad, but it is still your free will, your choice to listen or not. Personally, I believe I have no right in forcing anyone to do anything. But, I can try to be very persuasive, which is essentially what I am doing here by presenting the logic that has been given to me. 3. God love us = comfort zone?Perhaps or perhaps not. You have made an assumption that there is no God and must less to say one that loves us. But suppose, let us suppose that it is true that there is God that loves us. Would you want that love? 4. human nature to fear sin.If you say that I would have to ask. Is this nature found in all humans? Where did this nature come from? 1. How do you know 100% That God exists? Surely if you knew this, other people would too. This would cause religion in itself to be rewritten and there would be no need for faith. Because faith is believing in something more, not knowing it. If your God exists, surely christianity would have more than one billion followers.
Right now there is no way to prove anything. You can attribute any 'miracle' and say it is God. 100 years ago those divine acts were proven wrong by science today. Science has its flaws, but it is closer to the truth than anything christianity cocked up.
2. I was raised Catholic, so there isn't much I don't already know. I know your religion will never appeal to me. So just don't bother
3. Where did I ever say there is no God? You will never hear me say that, because I simply do not know if there is a god or not. No one knows that. There isn't 100% certainty for any religion. There is just faith and hope to guide people.
4. Where does this nature come from? From thousands of years of being human. It is instilled into our beings.
I am not trying to prove that christianity is wrong. I am not trying to prove any religion is wrong. I just cannot do that. Because I of course, know no truth when it comes to a higher power. NO ONE DOES. I am not one of those people who shrug it off either, I think about it a good deal of time.
Maybe it is because I was raised as a christian that I resent that religion over any other.
I will say this though. If I had a chance to convert to your religion, or jump off your cliff...I would go for the cliff.
(FFA? What is it?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:40 am
i dont beleive in a higher beings becuase if a higher being(aka. god) did create such a imperfect being as humans are god is not perfect
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:50 am
dreams into nights yami i dont beleive in a higher beings becuase if a higher being(aka. god) did create such a imperfect being as humans are god is not perfect So, are you saying just because WE are imprefect, a higher being cannot exist?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:52 am
hahaha, debate is quite a good way of excercising intellect I'd say. And no, if I would be detered from a debate simply because the other has a different point of view or perhaps even more intellectual than me, then I would be rather.... So no, I like debates and I like intellect. Even if we never come to the same conclusion, the process is quite enjoyable. Those are my thoughts when I sit and think about them anyways. If I have appeared otherwise, then I suppose I was not very logical at the time or I did not present myself very well.
1. Time
After all that we discussed, what actually is time in our universe? We know that it exists and can almost be considered a rate that limits change. My walking one step would be a change and my breathing would be a change. This "rate" however, is not always consistant in our universe. The closer the velocity of an object is to the speed of light, the slower time becomes for that object. Laws of physics. Natural phenomena, guided by the laws of physics and without a doubt, a part of this universe. But viewing those facts we can also see that it is not merely just a concept.
If, like you said, time is just a concept to describe cause and effect, second event after the first, then indeed we have not proved that it is limited to this universe. Yet, from before, time is not just a concept. It is actually something within this universe. Thus we can catagorize everything - all time, all space - into "this universe" for which the argument discusses. Anything that is in time is considered a part of "this universe".
2. logical as proof I
Now, you have stated that there is no observing the Big bang happening and of course, we know there's no way to observe what happened before the big bang. Yet you claim that we need to observe what happened before the willing of the universe. Is that not contradicting yourself?
Now you claim that time in this universe began with the Big bang but that is making the assumption that there was no interruptions. Your observation and scientific data can not prove the big bang - as you have also stated. Rather, it gives you a basis to make your logical thinking to deduce the big bang. Thus is it not contradicting yourself in that both the big bang and the argument has equal value of credit but you firmly believe one and dispell the other saying that it can not proven?
Now if the big bang was indeed truth of what happened, then regardless of double standards or contradictions, the truth remains the truth. But let me ask you. Is the big bang really the truth? Lets imagine that this universe Did start at one point. Now this obviously stating the matter and energy of this universe since that was the observation made by viewing the color of the stars. Yet think about it logically. If you have all the matter of the universe in one single point, what would happen? There would be a strong enough gravitational force that the matter would collapse in itself to create a massive blackhole. Therefore, if all matter began at a single point, do you really believe that they could somehow explode and expand?
In addition, where do you think these matter "at one point in space" came from? Suppose you have an answer, what was the force that delivered the explosion for the expansion of the universe? Inertia bids an explaination.
3. logic as proof II
Now, when you stated that "logical deductionas are not valid proof, only evidence" you have made a statement that would be refuted by an alarming amount of people. Have you ever used a truth table? Lets say... I make a statement "If I forgot to bring my lunch, then my friend would give me his lunch."
I: I forgot
G: friend give
Truth Table
I | G | I&G
T | T | T
T | F | F
F | T | T
F | F | T
(just for clarification, When I - the precondition - is false, then the statement does not touch the existing premise and therefore is valid... its a logic thing)
Now, using this table we can see that this statement is not absolute truth because if I forgot to bring my lunch and my friend did nto give his to me, then this statement is false. But if I add a statement
G = T
then the false in G would become T and the truth table would become...
I | G | I&G
T | T | T
T | T | T
F | T | T
F | T | T
Therefore, we can say that the premises in this case is a tautology(absolutely true for all cases) and thus is a valid proof. In other words logic can be and is actually very often used as valid proof rather than mere evidence. As for your example, it is not a very good example because even though you suspect that the kid stole the pie you have no absolute certainty that he did. Therefore, logically you can say he could or he could not have but not a tautology. And in my case, I have proved that the universe was willed into existance unless you should be able to refute it.
and... your welcome for the kalam argument smile
4. Kalam
Now, you have focused alot on the kalam but have you realized, that if you merely look at the logical deductions that I have made, that it is not exactly the kalam argument? So regardless of if the kalam argument is flawed or not, can you refute the logical argument that I presented? Remember, I did not assume that time is limited to this universe, but by reasoning, I have included time and totality of all else I mentioned into this universe to find the origin of them all. Can you deny the truth of the logical deduction?
5. Suppliment
On the contrary it is possible to prove absolute truth. One method is using the truth table and creating a tautology. But of course, if we both believed one side was absolute truth, we woudln't be having this wonderful intellectual swordplay now would we?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:28 am
R i o k u dreams into nights yami i dont beleive in a higher beings becuase if a higher being(aka. god) did create such a imperfect being as humans are god is not perfect So, are you saying just because WE are imprefect, a higher being cannot exist? kinda if a higher being did create us in a higher beings image we would be less imperfect then we are
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:23 pm
dreams into nights yami R i o k u dreams into nights yami i dont beleive in a higher beings becuase if a higher being(aka. god) did create such a imperfect being as humans are god is not perfect So, are you saying just because WE are imprefect, a higher being cannot exist? kinda if a higher being did create us in a higher beings image we would be less imperfect then we are That is only applied when you believe the higher being DID create us in his image.
Do you know that is true for sure? You can't rule out the possibility that by however means we got here, a higher power could be the opposite of what we are. Or maybe we are half of what it is? Maybe our other half is incomplete? Maybe we have to find that other half here? Maybe there just IS no Higher Being? Maybe our image has nothing to do with how we got here? Maybe we are a form of aliens that came from a distant planet?
There are thousands of questions that will remain unanswered. You can answer one, but many more will sprout.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:30 pm
@ souloe
I will say this. Logic is what you make it. Anything is what you make it. Just because YOUR logiv can make guess work that you THINK is close to proving a religion, doesn't mean we all think the same way. We chose whatever we think sounds right apply it at the most logical answer for your questions.
Let me just assume I actually believed you when you said you could prove God. You could run around and tell everyone he exists, and the world would be a better place, But what you would FAIL to do, if to prove that anything else I have mentioned DIDN'T happen.
You cannot ask your God what his laws are, what our purpose is. You can make guesswork with the bible, but the bible has obvious faults, it was written by people. People themselves, are imperfect we know that. So what, if you gave me proof of God. Just because you now know something bigger and better exists, doesn't mean he wants you to do what you are currently doing in regards to following the God's religion. You don't know that, because we as humans can't ever fully know it.
And you STILL can't prove to me that we weren't brought here by aliens. Just because one thing exists, does that mean nothing else does? No, you can never rule out every possibility. You can never get rid of the fact that it just MAY happen. The bible didn't say anything about the Dinosaurs, because it was written by humans, and 2000 years ago, humans did not know about dinosaurs. That's why. Perhaps the aliens I speak of gave to earth the God your worship? Prove that that isn't true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:01 pm
((@Rioku: yes yes, I shall comment on your post after I do dboyzero's. First come first serve if you don't mind. But ya, you do bring up some interesting questions I would say. Details to come of course))
@dboyzero
1. Probability = subjective?
No, actually proability is not subjective. In terms of stats if you flip a coin 1000 times then the probability of it being heads is approximately 500 times. Try it with a coin if you like. Its stats. In addition, there is a course in university that teaches the students how to calculate probability of something happening. One of the theories they use is the Bayesian theory. As well, there are mathematical formulas that they teach you in school to describe and figure out probability. Are you sure you can still say that probabiltiy is a subjective term?
2. probability of Bible prophecies being true
Now, probability can be calculated. This is a point agreed on universally. So if you have issues, well, I may not be the best person to talk to. Now suppose we dont' look at the other prophecies but only the messianic prophecies - ones that talk about the coming of Christ [approx 2000 years ago] and even then only look at the Major messianic prophecies we would find something very interesting. There are 60 Messianic prophcies in the OT. Perter W.Stoner and R.C. Newman calculated that the probability of 8 prophecies coming true is 0.00000000000000001% chance. That is only 8. Now for 48 prophecies the probability is 1/(1.0*10^56)% chance. Now to get an idea of what that means... th eestimated number of atoms in our universe is 1.0*10^57. And that was only 48 prophecies. What is the probability of 60 prophecies being fulfilled on one person? Is it more probable that it was by chance or intentional? (by the way, it way surpasses "scientifically impossible" at 0.001% chance).
3. church example
Actually, it was specified that they refused to talk about money matters. Thus, advertising is out of the question. And remember the location of his ministry. If it was canada you could say we have lots of people to gather up lots of money. But its in Africa. Would you say people there are rich? At least as much as us? They have worked in the location for quite some time now. When they say they need money, its already in their definition of money.
4. Jesus Christ
I look forward to your comments smile
5. Evolution
I do also look forward to your proofs on Evolution to be true since you seem to believe in it. Proofs that you can bring up here, since you did claim that there are thousands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:42 pm
((@Rioku: alright, here's my comments Rioku. I can see that your preset point of view is against Christianity, and "pity" them in your own words. Not saying its happening but just for clarification, I'm not hoping for a flame war but rather, just a friendly discussion.
FFA is free for all guild. located elsewhere in gaia. I just thought you might be someone else I know since you have approximately the same name.))
1. know God 100% exists
I know God 100% exists because after I made the leap of faith he has shown to me that He exists. He has gave me logical reasoning to support his existance. He has also appeared in my life intervening in places where self fulling prophecies can not possibly be the explaination. Now, please do not assume I know and then I believe. That is a reversed order. Simply saying that just because "If your God exists, surely christianity would have more than one billion followers" does not mean God does not exist. There are people who are unwilling to believe even if they see more support for God's existance than support against God's existance. Like you for example. Compare the support I have For God exists and support you have for God does Not exist. How does it compare?
2. Catholic and never appeal
As I said before, I am not going to force you or anything. Its really your choice, free will. But I would highly persuade you to at least "try out this God" at a personal level, if you don't mind my informality in saying so. Yet regardless, if you don't mind sharing, why is it that you believe what you believe?
3. fear turn into sin
is raping an innocent girl a sin? Or would you say it is morally correct? Now for the person doing the raping, is there anything for him to fear from this action? You might say that he fear of being caught and sent to jail. But now, people must have a standard before these laws are established. So how did this law in particular come to be? If you fear something then it's probably bad in someway or another. But suppose we take on the "scientific view" by raping, you actually increase reproduction adn thus is beneficial to human race. Why fear? Why sin?
4. no one knows the truth when it comes to a higher power
By the logic, if
1. there are two possibilities
2. one of them has to be correct
3. then if it is not the first correct, it must be the second correct
now, I have used this logic as basis and made valid an argument that this universe is willed into being. And I have also ruled out all other possibilities. If you like, I could give the argument to you. But essentially, that has proved that a being from beyond this universe exists and willed this universe into existance. If you could prove otherwise, please, by all means do. This is the purpose of the thread afterall.
5. Logic is what you make of it
hmmm, what do you think of these two statements? "If logic is subjective. Then science is irrelovent."
6. God
ask what our purpose is...actually, he told us. Not only in words through the Bible but also through actions by Jesus Christ. He wants to love us and have us to love Him, period. There are things that entail because of this love of course but the crux of Christianity is not following rules. Its to rebuild a broken relationship with God. Its to love Him who is willing to make a sacrifice I do not think you are willing even for your closest kin.
7. Dinosaurs
Actually, the Bible does have records of Dinosours. Its not named "dinosaurs" because the term was invented much later, but it does have mentions of beasts that fits the category under dinosaurs. If you want to look it up, its in Job.
8. Bible
You claim that the Bible is flawed because the people who wrote them are flawed. That is not neccessarily true. In fact, there is a possibility that that is not true. So I challenge you now. Prove the Bible to be false, incorrect, invalid or otherwise imperfect or wrong.
by the way, the Bible was written over many centuries with over 39 authors. The fact that their stuff lines up is a good indication that something is amidst. This Bible that you claimed to be false has stood to the test by scholars and philosophers and even scientists for...don't know how many years now. If they could prove it false, do you really think that such a big news would not have made it on front page newspaper by now?
I do not know everything. But from what I do know. The quality and quantity of evidences that support Christianity is far superior to that against Christianity. In fact, so far to day, I have never ever heard of ANY evidence to disprove Christianity much less to exeed the quantity and quality of those that does support it. Now, it could be that I am just very limited in my knowledge. That is a possibility, but if it were so, perhaps you can bring me the evidence to prove that God does not exist?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:09 pm
I never said the bible was untrue. I think you mistake my using your religion as an example to mean that I don't believe in anything.
On the contrary, I believe in everything, because everything is possible. You can take everything to mean whatever you want it to be, you can break it down so that everything doesn't exist at all, but to me it means something. Just like you have found your calling, I have found mine. And it differs from yours. Does that make it wrong? No, because many people believe different things, and we have yet to fully prove that any of it is 100% correct.
I have tried christianity. It is not for me. I know that. Because of my experiences in my life I know that. And I know it will never change. Just like you feel he exists because you made that leap of faith, I know he doesn't exist because of similar reasons I do not want to discuss. Because it is personal. Your own experiences have nothing to do with mine, therefore both of our stories, if I did end up telling you mine, could tell anyone that your god does or does not exist.
If you are asking me if rapping an innocent girl is a sin, I would say yes. Not because of any particular set of morals telling me it is so, but because by the way I think, it is wrong. Did he think it was wrong? I do not know. We fear things all the time, that doesn't mean they are bad. I dislike open water, you could say I fear it. Does that mean it is bad? No, but often people group together fear with being wrong or bad. It doesn't have to be that way...
Why would I want to prove anything? That is what it wrong with humans, we need an answer for it or we are left unsatisfied. We don't know what happens when we die, the answer is heaven. We don't know how we came to be, it is God. I don't NEED to prove ANYTHING in my life in order to feel good or better even. I just accept that some things are the way they are and I will never know how they got that way. I am not going to stick around and try and answer what people have been asking for ages because I don't need to. I find answers in other places, and if I don't, I accept that and move on. That is just how I word, and that is what makes the most sense to me. It doesn't really need to make sense to anyone else.
Science is science. Logic is Logic. Both are whatever you make them out to be. I know some people who just don;t take science for what it is because of THEIR religious beliefs. That doesn't make it wrong or right, but those people have someone else telling them science is not valid, so they believe it. What I think science is might differ from what you think. It is because people are different that we even have arguements anyways. It is being different that makes us all the same.
Assuming I actually believed Jesus was the son of God. If I didn't, anything in the bible, or anything you God told you wouldn't matter to me.
Again, I am not going to prove the bible false because I can't prove it to be true either. Did everything in the bible really happen? Probably not. Did everything in the bible not happen? Probably not. I am not as ignorant to just believe because I don't agree with a religion, the text is wrong. I personally think that the bible contains some truth to it, because I believe it cannot be entirely fictional. Why? It makes sense to me, that's why.
You will never ever see me trying to prove God doesn't exist. That is as foolish as trying to prove that he does. Again, we cannot know either one. You may think we can, but I think we cannot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:02 am
R i o k u dreams into nights yami R i o k u dreams into nights yami i dont beleive in a higher beings becuase if a higher being(aka. god) did create such a imperfect being as humans are god is not perfect So, are you saying just because WE are imprefect, a higher being cannot exist? kinda if a higher being did create us in a higher beings image we would be less imperfect then we are That is only applied when you believe the higher being DID create us in his image.
Do you know that is true for sure? You can't rule out the possibility that by however means we got here, a higher power could be the opposite of what we are. Or maybe we are half of what it is? Maybe our other half is incomplete? Maybe we have to find that other half here? Maybe there just IS no Higher Being? Maybe our image has nothing to do with how we got here? Maybe we are a form of aliens that came from a distant planet?
There are thousands of questions that will remain unanswered. You can answer one, but many more will sprout.
please correct me if i am wronge but does the bible say that god created man in his image?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:25 pm
dreams into nights yami R i o k u dreams into nights yami R i o k u dreams into nights yami i dont beleive in a higher beings becuase if a higher being(aka. god) did create such a imperfect being as humans are god is not perfect So, are you saying just because WE are imprefect, a higher being cannot exist? kinda if a higher being did create us in a higher beings image we would be less imperfect then we are That is only applied when you believe the higher being DID create us in his image.
Do you know that is true for sure? You can't rule out the possibility that by however means we got here, a higher power could be the opposite of what we are. Or maybe we are half of what it is? Maybe our other half is incomplete? Maybe we have to find that other half here? Maybe there just IS no Higher Being? Maybe our image has nothing to do with how we got here? Maybe we are a form of aliens that came from a distant planet?
There are thousands of questions that will remain unanswered. You can answer one, but many more will sprout.
please correct me if i am wronge but does the bible say that god created man in his image? He did create us in his image, and when he created us we were perfect. Unforetunately, God's enemy Satan (aka the devil, the prince of the world, the serpant) persuaded man to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Because of this corruption came into man, which is why we are so imperfect. However God is endeavouring to transform us into a perfect being again. I had writen out a really long explantion before of what I believed in but then I pushed the wrong button and it disappeared. Darn that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:50 pm
dreams into nights yami R i o k u dreams into nights yami R i o k u dreams into nights yami i dont beleive in a higher beings becuase if a higher being(aka. god) did create such a imperfect being as humans are god is not perfect So, are you saying just because WE are imprefect, a higher being cannot exist? kinda if a higher being did create us in a higher beings image we would be less imperfect then we are That is only applied when you believe the higher being DID create us in his image.
Do you know that is true for sure? You can't rule out the possibility that by however means we got here, a higher power could be the opposite of what we are. Or maybe we are half of what it is? Maybe our other half is incomplete? Maybe we have to find that other half here? Maybe there just IS no Higher Being? Maybe our image has nothing to do with how we got here? Maybe we are a form of aliens that came from a distant planet?
There are thousands of questions that will remain unanswered. You can answer one, but many more will sprout.
please correct me if i am wronge but does the bible say that god created man in his image? Who says everyone listens to the bible? That really only applies if you're christian. It doesn't apply absolutely across all cultures just because you believe in it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
