Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/5/04 02:50 AM, -poxpower- wrote:

At 12/5/04 02:40 AM, Maus wrote:
Faith is believing without seeing. Without touching. Without hearing. Everything.

yes, and justifying things with it is called "arrogance" and it plenty reason to get your ass kicked. "my god says its ok to beat women, so it is, I have faith".

-Sorry. somebody already made that religion. it's called Islam. And I'm sure if all inatimate objects could talk, they would think it was pretty arrogant of you to expect them to do every little thing you asked them to without trying to make sure they are capable. That's also faith. So, unless you completely dismantle, inspect, and reassemble everything you come in contact with, you still have "arrogant" faith.

So in conclusion :

-If there is a god he lives outside the world of Logic and Nature
-It's a 50/50 chance he's there or not (either way its possible) ...

This is the basis for fundamental religion.. ..

TEH END!! : P

At 12/5/04 02:56 AM, Thelonius wrote:
Nope. I said God did not exist physically in our world, as that would be illogical since nature does not support infinites, such as God. Therefore, God exists outside our physical universe and in sync with logic. Could it be any more simple?

I guess we got mixed up when I said that since God and the Universe could both be infinite, why choose god, and you replied with "he can exist outside the laws of nature" which doesn't really make sense to add to my remark o.O I wasn't even talking about the laws of nature, I was talking about pure logic, and you come and talk about "laws of nature and the physical world".
anyways

You follow and idealize logic, therefore it is your God. :o

how is it idealised?
And your definition of a God is helluva vague O.o

At 12/5/04 02:57 AM, fastbow wrote:

-Sorry. somebody already made that religion. it's called Islam. And I'm sure if all inatimate objects could talk, they would think it was pretty arrogant of you to expect them to do every little thing you asked them to without trying to make sure they are capable.

I'm not really sure what the hell you're talking about at this point, but I'll assume you're on some sort of powerful drug/laxative :o

That's also faith. So, unless you completely dismantle, inspect, and reassemble everything you come in contact with, you still have "arrogant" faith.

in case you haven't noticed, that's exactly what logic entails. I just "believe" whatever seems most logical with my current amount of knowledge, which is what makes the most sense ( not, you can't debate that part, its true).
If I seem to be arrogant to you by simply acting the way everyone should, its because you are arrogant and acting in a way that makes no sense ( that's called reading the bible and thinking its all true)

At 12/5/04 03:02 AM, -poxpower- wrote: I guess we got mixed up when I said that since God and the Universe could both be infinite

Maybe you should do some reading. The universe is certainly not infinite, and nothing infinite can exist within it.

why choose god, and you replied with "he can exist outside the laws of nature" which doesn't really make sense to add to my remark o.O I wasn't even talking about the laws of nature, I was talking about pure logic, and you come and talk about "laws of nature and the physical world".
anyways

You are just spouting what you wanted to see. Your paraphrasing abilities are shoddy.

You follow and idealize logic, therefore it is your God. :o

how is it idealised?
And your definition of a God is helluva vague O.o

Let's do some defining shall we?

ideal - A conception of something in its absolute perfection.

God - Anything that is worshiped, idealized, or followed.

Pretty standard stuff, really.

At 12/5/04 02:57 AM, fastbow wrote:

Read your Bible, hon. 'specially Leviticus.

Look. The Bible is not my source, Real life is, and it's my life, so...

I heart you. Heart me, too. Or I'll stab your face off.

At 12/5/04 03:09 AM, Thelonius wrote:

Maybe you should do some reading. The universe is certainly not infinite, and nothing infinite can exist within it.

fine "been there forever". I was supposing that is you supposed both could have been there forever, then you would be stupid to pick god over the Universe. Stop changing subjects.

You are just spouting what you wanted to see. Your paraphrasing abilities are shoddy.

omg mirror

how is it idealised?
And your definition of a God is helluva vague O.o

ideal - A conception of something in its absolute perfection.

so how do I idealise logic beyond itself? Logic is ideal by definition, and everyone follows logic, so that's just saying everyone follows the god of logic, which is saying nothing at all o.O

what the hell are you even trying to do by saying logic is my God, especialy with a vague definition of both concepts??

God - Anything that is worshiped, idealized, or followed.

At 12/5/04 03:05 AM, -poxpower- wrote:

At 12/5/04 02:57 AM, fastbow wrote:

-Sorry. somebody already made that religion. it's called Islam. And I'm sure if all inatimate objects could talk, they would think it was pretty arrogant of you to expect them to do every little thing you asked them to without trying to make sure they are capable.

I'm not really sure what the hell you're talking about at this point, but I'll assume you're on some sort of powerful drug/laxative :o

-it is quite obvious you have faith in something, unless you double check all code on your computer, take the shell off, check for every transistor, wire, resistor, capacitor, and silicon chip, and then dismantle and inspect your keyboard before typing every single letter, you have faith the program will run, all the parts are in the computer, and the keyboard will type.

That's also faith. So, unless you completely dismantle, inspect, and reassemble everything you come in contact with, you still have "arrogant" faith.

in case you haven't noticed, that's exactly what logic entails. I just "believe" whatever seems most logical with my current amount of knowledge, which is what makes the most sense ( not, you can't debate that part, its true).
If I seem to be arrogant to you by simply acting the way everyone should, its because you are arrogant and acting in a way that makes no sense ( that's called reading the bible and thinking its all true)

-how do you use logic to determine whether your chair will support your weight?

At 12/5/04 03:11 AM, Maus wrote: Read your Bible, hon. 'specially Leviticus.

-I have read Leviticus. I have a Bible right here. I will read it right now. What am I looking for?

Look. The Bible is not my source, Real life is, and it's my life, so...

I heart you. Heart me, too. Or I'll stab your face off.

-If the Bible is not your source, how can you claim to be any type of christian?

At 12/5/04 03:25 AM, fastbow wrote:
-it is quite obvious you have faith in something, unless you double check all code on your computer, take the shell off, check for every transistor, wire, resistor, capacitor, and silicon chip, and then dismantle and inspect your keyboard before typing every single letter, you have faith the program will run, all the parts are in the computer, and the keyboard will type.

I don't have faith it will run, it just RUNS. It doesn't need my frickin faith, it just works. See? type type type. Omg it works. When I buy icecream at the store, I don't have "faith" that the man won't poison me, I just logicaly assume its bad business for him to poison costumers and then take the gamble that I won't die from eating the ice cream, which is a gamble I'll most likely win and have won many times in the past.
good gambling 8-)
Your bible crap is just stupid faith that isn't based on any observations or logic.
pure crap

-how do you use logic to determine whether your chair will support your weight?

I don't, I just sit on it and it works. :o And then after that, once I tested it out, I can base other observations on that one and then conclude things withint a resonable margin of error. That's how I can logicaly assume that I won't fall on my ass if I sit on a chair made of solid granite: because in the past, when I sat on granite, it was hard.

I don't see your past experiences of "being saved by jesus" and "going to heaven". If there is something that someone tells me and I think it makes sense with what I know, then I believe it, not because I have faith in the person, but simply because it makes more sense to believe him than to not believe him. But you blindly believe what is written in the bible, wether it makes sense or not.

At 12/5/04 03:19 AM, -poxpower- wrote: fine "been there forever". I was supposing that is you supposed both could have been there forever, then you would be stupid to pick god over the Universe. Stop changing subjects.

I will stop "changing subjects" as soon as you stop making things up. Hey, weren't you the one who accused me of that? Funny.

so how do I idealise logic beyond itself? Logic is ideal by definition, and everyone follows logic, so that's just saying everyone follows the god of logic, which is saying nothing at all o.O

Ever heard of a paradox? Logic fails.

You idealize an imperfect concept, thereby distorting it when you call it perfect. I idealize and follow God. God never fails.

what the hell are you even trying to do by saying logic is my God, especialy with a vague definition of both concepts??

How are those vague? Those are straight from the dictionary.

it seems to me you have enough faith in your argument against me to automatically assume you think that because i am a Christian and only 16 years old I don't know what I am talking about. Everything requires faith. Call it what you will, but I'm sure youve had things go wrong on you before........

At 12/5/04 03:37 AM, Thelonius wrote:
Ever heard of a paradox? Logic fails.

not really, since you still use to for everything else o.O Its not like the fact that paradoxes exist invalidate logic. So alright, its not perfect, so what? I still live by it.

How are those vague? Those are straight from the dictionary.

that definition of God is like anything :o

At 12/5/04 03:44 AM, -poxpower- wrote: not really, since you still use to for everything else o.O Its not like the fact that paradoxes exist invalidate logic. So alright, its not perfect, so what? I still live by it.

I will use your tactics now. You follow logic blindly? Wow. Pathetic. You should let go of it. You do not need it.

that definition of God is like anything :o

Anything? That definition of God does not apply to my shoe.

At 12/3/04 03:49 PM, Thelonius wrote: In order to merge Evolution and Creation...

Thank you very much... you said everything I wanted to better than I could have done so myself. I was having an argument about someone with this and they were just so convinced that the Bible is absolute truth and Genesis should be taken literal, that now I'm too tired to debate it any longer. I'm gonna stamp your post to my forehead.

At 12/5/04 12:38 AM, Thelonius wrote:

At 12/5/04 12:29 AM, -poxpower- wrote: If you can admit something has been here forever, then why would it be a god and not the Universe itself??

If the concept of God is true, omniscient, omnipotent, and quasi-omnipresent, then it is sensible to say God exists outside the physical realm and is therefore not subject to the laws of nature.

and what is this non-physical realm
how would he interact with the physical realm. there are plenty of good explainations to that question but to have people believe them as real is unlikely.

At 12/5/04 05:34 AM, The_Darklands wrote: and what is this non-physical realm

Heaven?

how would he interact with the physical realm.

Read The Bible. It is full of ways he has interacted with people.

At 12/5/04 01:08 AM, Thelonius wrote: You may need to elaborate more for me to fully understand what you mean here, but to my knowledge black stars are nothing more than "hollowed husks" of their original selves. Their radioactive core is burned out, so they no longer emit any sort of detectable radiation. If this is true, then it seems unlikely that a black star could therefore be unstable.

If a black star continiously absorbs energy, then where does all of this energy eventually go? I think Hawking was thinking along the lines of what you're thinking, but later reversed himself in the last couple years. I'll have to get a source for that.

I am by no means an authority on physics, but the early Newtonian principle that the more distant two objects in space, the weaker the gravitational attraction between them still stands, to my knowledge. I would be very interested to see if you could produce a source that supports this claim.

I know I can't produce a source for my claim. It's all something that I'm going to have to prove myself. Basically it's a collective gravitational pull, and when you're near the fringe of the universe you are experiencing the full onslaught of this collective gravitational pull. This could also be used to explain why graviy is such a weak force because it is weakened by itself.

If what you say is true, then it would be impossible to even reach the extent of the universe. The further out you went, the more energy would be required to continue. Infinite energy is an impossibility.

Infinite energy would be required to overcome the collective gravitational force of the universe, but it would only be near infinity to reach the fringes of the universe.

Yes, but string theorists believe blackholes do not explode, but rather gradually recede.

String theorists=theory
What I'm saying=hypothesis which with more data and calculations could become a theory.

Don't take anything I say as fact, I still need to prove a lot of this stuff through math/observations.

Nice to know we will be working in the same field.

I'm not sure if I'm going into this field, but I am merely going towards an engineering degree. I also need to edumacate myself with some more on what is occuring in the universe and come up with my own ideas instead of branching off of someone elses.

At 12/5/04 01:48 AM, fastbow wrote: That may be true, but people crusade against Christianity more than ANYTHING ELSE! Pick up a copy of Voice of the Mayrtrs to see the persecution that Christians experience around the globe. I have personally met people that have been imprisioned for practicing Christianity. Did you buy Chinese christmas lights this year? They were probably made by people in political prisions, many of which are Christians.

What about jewish people? I believe their death numbers are greater then the christianity numbers. As well as that, the number of deaths attributed to Christians is far greater then any other religion. Not saying that it's a bad religion, it's that rulers have manipulated Christianity to suit their agendas.

Ok just a quick quiestion.

Why would God be of a certain sex? What is he reproducing with? (He is used because it is used for a person with an indefinite sex, uknown sex, or unspecified sex.)

At 12/5/04 12:07 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: If a black star continiously absorbs energy, then where does all of this energy eventually go?

How does a black star continuously absorb energy when there is nothing to absorb?

Infinite energy would be required to overcome the collective gravitational force of the universe, but it would only be near infinity to reach the fringes of the universe.

Describe the term "near infinity" to me. You will see that you cannot and that is why it would be impossible, if your hypothesis is correct, to reach the fringes of the universe.

String theorists=theory
What I'm saying=hypothesis which with more data and calculations could become a theory.

Please do not downplay string theory like that. For over twenty years the greatest minds on Earth have been doing extensive research on the subject and have come to these conclusions. If your hypothesis conflicts with string theory, quantum mechanics, and special relativity then it may need revising.

At 12/5/04 12:16 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: Why would God be of a certain sex? What is he reproducing with? (He is used because it is used for a person with an indefinite sex, uknown sex, or unspecified sex.)

Angels, and I imagine God, are sterile. So yes, this would make for an indefinite sex.

At 12/5/04 04:18 AM, Thelonius wrote:

I will use your tactics now. You follow logic blindly? Wow. Pathetic. You should let go of it. You do not need it.

Blindly? I said that? I said that I have "faith in logic"? Find that quote.Logic is just the most powerful thing ever by definition. Except it doesn't even need to exists physicaly to be used or to work, unlike Gods. Logic is just a concept everyone follows, its just that some people follow a god AND logic at the same time.
So if I'm crazy for following logic, then I know everyone else is at least as crazy as I am, or crazier for those who have faith in some cosmic being which they define so vaguely it could indeed apply to a pair of nike airwalks.

At 12/5/04 12:16 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: Ok just a quick quiestion.

Why would God be of a certain sex?

He doesn't need to be a certain sex.

What is he reproducing with?

Nothing. The term "He" is used because it is easier to imagine an almighty being with a sex. We can hardly understand how He was never created, now you want us to try to understand the sex of a spirit? God is spirit, and was not created sexually (He always existed); therefore He is not a sexual being - not male or female. We can't refer to Him as "It", that would be disrespectful, so I guess since He apparently made men first and since men have always been more powerful than woman in this world, God was associated with men. If Jesus went around saying, God is not male or female, you think people would have beleived Him at all? More people probably would have thought it's crazy talk... I don't think they were as open-minded and definitely not as educated as we are.

(He is used because it is used for a person with an indefinite sex, uknown sex, or unspecified sex.)

I just can't relate sexuality to something supernatural and non-physical, but I can't imagine referring to God as anything but He.

At 12/5/04 01:30 PM, -poxpower- wrote: So if I'm crazy for following logic, then I know everyone else is at least as crazy as I am, or crazier for those who have faith in some cosmic being which they define so vaguely it could indeed apply to a pair of nike airwalks.

There is a philosophical difference. You praise and worship logic just as others praise and worship God. You are a devotee of logic and I am a devotee of God.

And, certainly, someone could make Nike Airwalks lord of their life. People kill, steal, and injure for them. They sing their praises and idealize them.

At 12/5/04 02:52 PM, Thelonius wrote:

There is a philosophical difference. You praise and worship logic just as others praise and worship God. You are a devotee of logic and I am a devotee of God.

I know what you are saying, but its not true :o
I am not "devoted to logic" in a sense that I choose to be because I have faith. I just AM because everyone and everything pretty much is.
Logic is what everyone uses to make choices. Logic is what makes your car run, its what makes everything something. Without some laws, stuff doesn't work.
So I'm just saying that I only think things in terms of logic, because its obviously what makes the most sense, and that by using logic and what I know, I can determine that the odds of there being a god a probably smaller than the odds of there being no God, because if I have to admit something has always been there, I'd rather admit that its the Universe, which I know for a fact exists, than a God, which I know for a fact I can never know exists. Probably :o

I don't "devote my life" to logic or some shit, its just the only thing I and everyone works with. If someone has faith in something, then its because it makes sense to them, with their limited knowledge and life experiences, and I can try to change their views with logic and probably show them that at one point, they are betting against the odds and are in fact just wanting to believe, like I would want to bet on a number at the Casino.

At 12/5/04 12:34 PM, Thelonius wrote:

At 12/5/04 12:07 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: If a black star continiously absorbs energy, then where does all of this energy eventually go?

How does a black star continuously absorb energy when there is nothing to absorb?

Exactly my point. If the black stars didn't emit some kind of energy then the entire universe would be in the forms of black holes.

Describe the term "near infinity" to me.

A very fucking large number.

String theorists=theory
What I'm saying=hypothesis which with more data and calculations could become a theory.

Please do not downplay string theory like that. For over twenty years the greatest minds on Earth have been doing extensive research on the subject and have come to these conclusions. If your hypothesis conflicts with string theory, quantum mechanics, and special relativity then it may need revising.

I wasn't downlplaying string theory. I was downplaying my hypothesis.

black holes dammit, black holes. Ahh that was a good ignoramous statement I made. black stars= black holes.

At 12/5/04 03:52 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote:

Describe the term "near infinity" to me.

A very fucking large number.

that number isn't even a trillionth of infinity :o
Just say "a very large number" next time :p

At 12/5/04 03:52 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: Exactly my point. If the black stars didn't emit some kind of energy then the entire universe would be in the forms of black holes.

It sounds to me like you are contradicting yourself. However, I may not understand exactly what you mean. You said in the beginning was just a black star. Where did these black holes suddenly come from?

A very fucking large number.

That does not work. For example... what is infinity - 1? Infinity. No number exists that can be defined as near-infinite.

I wasn't downlplaying string theory. I was downplaying my hypothesis.

Sorry, my misunderstanding.