Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/5/06 01:46 PM, XAVlER wrote: That time travelling thing one of you posted is rather incorrect actually, if you go back into the past and murder someone then go back into the present time and the past you was arrested and let us say was put into jail for 20 years, when you go back into the present time from the past wouldn't you be in jail?

no, its impossible that you would be in jail, because if you were in jail, you wouldnt be able to go back into the past to get yourself into jail, therefore its impossible to change what had happened, because if you change anything, it would automaticly create an impossible paradox

At 11/5/06 03:05 PM, dELtaluca wrote:

At 11/5/06 01:46 PM, XAVlER wrote: That time travelling thing one of you posted is rather incorrect actually, if you go back into the past and murder someone then go back into the present time and the past you was arrested and let us say was put into jail for 20 years, when you go back into the present time from the past wouldn't you be in jail?

no, its impossible that you would be in jail, because if you were in jail, you wouldnt be able to go back into the past to get yourself into jail, therefore its impossible to change what had happened, because if you change anything, it would automaticly create an impossible paradox

That's based on the assumption that all of your actions occurred in the same timeline, and that the "you" who traveled back in time and returned is still the same as the "you" who exists in the timeline. If travelling back in time simply stole energy sufficient to create your body and systems (since matter is equivalent to energy) from some existing system, then no paradox occurs and both "you"s can exist, meet, interact, etc. without paradox.

I am God, so wtf do you mean if I exist or not? Eh?

At 11/5/06 04:46 PM, Draconias wrote: That's based on the assumption that all of your actions occurred in the same timeline, and that the "you" who traveled back in time and returned is still the same as the "you" who exists in the timeline.

and your's is based on the assumption that that isnt true :p we dont know, its all throwing around idea's

If travelling back in time simply stole energy sufficient to create your body and systems (since matter is equivalent to energy) from some existing system, then no paradox occurs and both "you"s can exist, meet, interact, etc. without paradox.

wheres the need to steel energy, or for it to simply appear? You travel from the future to the past, so all of youre matter - energy is moved through time, so that the past gains youre matter, and the future loses it, so no energy is lost or gained altogether.

At 11/5/06 02:49 PM, internet-lord wrote: I died once. Woke up with danny peeing on me head. some sight to wake up to
Colin farrel - Scrubs

i think Scrubs is proof enough there is a higher power.

At 11/5/06 04:52 PM, Paul-Stetich wrote: I am God, so wtf do you mean if I exist or not? Eh?

Great and almighty paul. Tell me what to do and I shall follow.

Your point comes on a little strong.

At 11/5/06 04:54 PM, UnusQuoMeridianus wrote:

At 11/5/06 02:49 PM, internet-lord wrote: I died once. Woke up with danny peeing on me head. some sight to wake up to
Colin farrel - Scrubs

i think Scrubs is proof enough there is a higher power.

Please elaborate. But mind you that scrubs is fictional.

At 11/5/06 04:57 PM, internet-lord wrote:

At 11/5/06 04:52 PM, Paul-Stetich wrote: I am God, so wtf do you mean if I exist or not? Eh?

Great and almighty paul. Tell me what to do and I shall follow.

Your point comes on a little strong.

You shall watch WWE Cyber Sunday, tonight 7 pm eastern on PPV and watch the Big Show get his ass kicked in the Champion of Champions match! Woo!

At 11/5/06 05:00 PM, Paul-Stetich wrote:

At 11/5/06 04:57 PM, internet-lord wrote:

At 11/5/06 04:52 PM, Paul-Stetich wrote: I am God, so wtf do you mean if I exist or not? Eh?

Great and almighty paul. Tell me what to do and I shall follow.

Your point comes on a little strong.

You shall watch WWE Cyber Sunday, tonight 7 pm eastern on PPV and watch the Big Show get his ass kicked in the Champion of Champions match! Woo!

Well its just gone 10pm great lord so NO! I dont believe in you anymore. I wanted my porshe and I didnt get one.

At 11/5/06 05:03 PM, internet-lord wrote:

At 11/5/06 05:00 PM, Paul-Stetich wrote:

At 11/5/06 04:57 PM, internet-lord wrote:

At 11/5/06 04:52 PM, Paul-Stetich wrote: I am God, so wtf do you mean if I exist or not? Eh?

Great and almighty paul. Tell me what to do and I shall follow.

Your point comes on a little strong.

You shall watch WWE Cyber Sunday, tonight 7 pm eastern on PPV and watch the Big Show get his ass kicked in the Champion of Champions match! Woo!

Hang on. let me re-phrase that. Its gone 10pm in the UK and I want a porshe. NOW! besides isnt the Big show a little old to be doing this stuff

Big show, maybe. But I think he's to out-a-shape, catch my drift?

At 11/5/06 05:42 PM, Paul-Stetich wrote: Big show, maybe. But I think he's to out-a-shape, catch my drift?

hes gotton really fat?

At 11/5/06 05:45 PM, internet-lord wrote:

At 11/5/06 05:42 PM, Paul-Stetich wrote: Big show, maybe. But I think he's to out-a-shape, catch my drift?

hes gotton really fat?

looks like it to me lol.

Your porsche will be delivered to you on oh sayt monday June something 20??

At 11/5/06 05:46 PM, Paul-Stetich wrote:

At 11/5/06 05:45 PM, internet-lord wrote:

At 11/5/06 05:42 PM, Paul-Stetich wrote: Big show, maybe. But I think he's to out-a-shape, catch my drift?

hes gotton really fat?

looks like it to me lol.

Your porsche will be delivered to you on oh sayt monday June something 20??

So it should ive been a loyal follower for nearly an hour. lol

I think the big show should retire and leave it to people who arnt in there late 40's

i dont care if u dont believe cuz ill be laughing my ass off while ur burning in hell

It's never been proved or disproved so it doesn't matter, your not going to get an answer anytime soon. I for one, choose to believe in God, just because... I think it is possible.

personally, i am an athiest, being brought up by another athiest, but here's an argument for and against religion.

for

scientists have absolutley no idea exactely what triggered the theoretical start of the universe(le, big bang), even though we have an idea how the universe will end.

against

each step in evolution is simply adaption, making ourselves more efficient. for instance, the cheetah. the cheetah has a relitivily small frame, so it developed a way to throw it's metobolism into overdrive, giving it a boost of speed, compensating for the relitivily small frame. simple. and yes, i intented to give this argument a more thorough explaination.

At 11/5/06 05:00 PM, internet-lord wrote:

At 11/5/06 04:54 PM, UnusQuoMeridianus wrote:

At 11/5/06 02:49 PM, internet-lord wrote: I died once. Woke up with danny peeing on me head. some sight to wake up to
Colin farrel - Scrubs

i think Scrubs is proof enough there is a higher power.

Please elaborate. But mind you that scrubs is fictional.

elaborate? it was just a statement as to how much Scrubs kicks ass.

At 11/5/06 08:26 PM, countconkula wrote: It's never been proved or disproved so it doesn't matter, your not going to get an answer anytime soon. I for one, choose to believe in God, just because... I think it is possible.

Is the flying spaghetti monster possible because you can't disprove it.

BOB SAGET IS GOD!

At 11/5/06 11:21 PM, Takkito wrote: BOB SAGET IS GOD!

Tenacious D is better.

I agree and if there is a god it would be impossible to fathom it. God is ethier a really nice thing or some twisted scientist who loves irony and having people worship and fight over it or justs sits and watches us screw oursevles. Don't come at me with bible quotes or shit like that everyone interprets things differently. As long as we don't force our belifs on one-another. That is what america is all about diversity (it doesn't always mean race).

Personaly I think we should all follow a new religion and not fight so we canwork together as a species.

We need to stop thinking as "americans" or" koreans" and start thinking as one: HUMANS!

(just an opinion)

I ment i agreed with neoptolemus

At 11/4/06 01:04 PM, wwwyzzerdd wrote: I asked "What created God" not as a debate on the existence of God, but rather to bring an error to light in the concept of intelligent design. ID seems to state that everything must be physically created in order for it's existence to be valid, but at the same time, it contradicts its self in the goal to prove that a god created everything. If everything is created, then surely God was created too.

Intelligent design does not say that every physical thing was created nor does it say that that the intelligent designer was not created. It says some physical things were created (i.e., are irreducible) and says absolutely nothing about the designer(s). Since neither ID nor any other area of science establishes any facts about the designer(s), then science cannot theorize about possible irreducibilities that they might have.

To obtain a contradiction, you would need to make some assumptions in ID theory along the lines of the following:

1) there is one unique designer of all naturally arising biological irreducibilities
2) this designer possesses intellectual facilities that are irreducible
3) there exists a time in which the designer did not exist, thus necessitating his "emergence" from some environment

If you remove (1), then you allow the possibility that the designer was creating by a different designer than itself. If you remove (2), then you allow the possibility that the designer's intellect is reducible and thus could have evolved or otherwise somehow randomly emerged from its environment. If you remove (3), then it goes back to what the guy said about existence of the designer possibly not requiring a cause.

However, the three statements do contradict in ID theory. Statement (3) establishes that the designer was formed somehow. Statement (2) establishes that this "formation" could have only been accomplished through an act of creation by another designer. Statement (1) implies that this designer is himself. We take it to be a contradiction that the designer created himself (although, I have read articles claiming that this is not a contradiction).

Well that time travelling thing I admit was a little bit incorrect but, if you go into the past and change something, that alone will effect the future does it not? I am not entirely accurate because I believe that Time Machines will never exist in this world, if it does. It could be extremely dangerous since if you change the past, the whole timeline will be changed aswell.

Anyway yup, this is just a debate and I'm an easy going person so I really do not get mad over these kinds of matter, I actually came here to see other people's opinions but it turned out to be an arguement not a debate.

No he doesnt exist

At 11/5/06 11:10 PM, UnusQuoMeridianus wrote:

elaborate? it was just a statement as to how much Scrubs kicks ass.

Tch, fag

At 10/29/06 03:22 PM, jlwelch wrote:

:: : The Bible clearly states you cannot get to heaven by works but by faith ALONE!

Actually it says that Faith without action worthless.

You cannot say "I believe in god" then ignore his commandments, and expect that your mere belief will be enough.
--------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------

on the theory evolution

I believe in Evolution to a point, by following darwins rules humanity shouldnt even exist.

Species evolve out of neccesity we are far more then what is neccesary.
Some people say that is simply because of our technology, but let us look again at the apes. They also use tools, but only to the extent that it is neccesary (it obviously works they're still here).

We shouldnt even have the ability to create such grand technology by darwins laws.

Evoloution ( the changing of a species over time) is a fact.
I believe humanity to have been created by God, i also believe humanity has evolved and changed since its creation (note the difference in size of ancient peoples compsred to us).

cosmogical argument:

1. the existence of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation.(by definition of intelligibility)

2. The existance of the universe thus either
(a) is unintelligible
or
(b) has an explanation (from step 1)

3. no rational person should accept 2-(a) (by definition of rationality)

4. a rational person should accept 2-(b): the universe has an explanation

5. there are only 3 kinds of explanation
(a) scientific: explanations of the form C+L->E (independant initial physical conditions, plus relevant laws, yield the event explained)
(b) Personal: explanations that cite the desires, beliefs, powers, and intentions of some personal agent
(c)Essential: The essence of the thing to be explained necessitates its existence or qualities.

6. the explanation for the existance of the whole universe can't be scientific (as there can't be initial physical conditions and laws indepent of what is to be explained)

7.the explanation for the existence of the whole universe can't be essential. (the universe, by nature of its matter, is not the sort of thing that exists necessarily)

therefore

8. A rational person should believe that the universe has a personal explanation

9. no personal agent but god could create an entire universe

therefore

10. A rational person should believe that there is a god

as you can see, there ARE logical arguments for the existance of a god.

I want to hear a logical argument that cites the non-existance of a god. not skepticism, like most of this topic has been, not misinformed illogical rants, but a logical argument that cites that a god could not exist.

Does God exist? Isn't this more of a philosophical question that humanity has been trying to answer for centuries? Perhaps the "general" catagory would be better for such a question.

Whether or not God exists, government will continue to run anyways as it is decided by the people, run by few people, or whatever the case it is still run by people, (does not even have to include a god at all). Maybe the leaders of the government can be looked upon as gods, maybe the people have a god with them guiding their ideals, who knows, and who gives a damn when this is the politics forum and not the philosophical questions forum (which they should probably make, since everyone has plenty of those).