Humans are absolutely notorious for finding meaning in mere coincidences. Humans often reason that a coincidence was too unlikely to have occurred without a causal agent, whether that be a god, a four leaf clover, etc.
Because I have prayed to Him, He have allowed me to recover from a painful disease in just one day, whereas for a Christian it has been more than a week and the Christian is still very sick. And people who have dedicated their life to insulting Him and His Demons, have had family members miraculously removed and become ill.
Whoa, that's interesting. What religion does your God lead?
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Because it is too broad and vague. There's nothing to discuss about it.
but that is what god is...
HHS wrote:
Well, that is a valid definition. It unambigously defines the word "God" to mean the being that created everything, if there is such a being.
the being didn't create this being we call existence; the non-being did.
Now you're calling him "him".
in finnish there is no he or she.
What I said was that They might think that you are defending their enemies with the intent to make Them sad. But, no one can be held at fault for rightly becoming sad.
god has no enemies...
Furthermore, you are using two conflicting definitions of "God".
where is the conflict?
AQwertyZ wrote:
Humans are absolutely notorious for finding meaning in mere coincidences. Humans often reason that a coincidence was too unlikely to have occurred without a causal agent, whether that be a god, a four leaf clover, etc.
coincidence is just a word invented to hide our ignorance of the real causes. there are no coincidences because everything is ruled by laws/gods.
Joined: 11/27/2004
Posts: 688
Location: WA State, USA
mmbossman wrote:
I thought there was this one guy called Satan. You know God and Satan, Good and Evil, Right and Wrong...all that.
I would make an nfq-style post in response to this comment, but I honestly an unable to lower my intelligence that much without suffering permanent brain damage.
Nach wrote:
I also used to wake up every morning, open my curtains, and see the twin towers. And then one day, wasn't able to anymore, I'll never forget that.
the being didn't create this being we call existence; the non-being did.
It was your definition... I didn't say that it was meaningful, only that it was semantically valid.
in finnish there is no he or she.
So you're saying that you can call him he, but I can't because I'm Norwegian :D Well, I have to call him something, you know.
god has no enemies...
My Gods have several enemies. That means anyone who works against Them. For example, by starting false churches in Their names, or trying to destroy, vandalize or injure something They have created, or trying to harm Them personally. None of these things are permitted.
where is the conflict?
First you said that God was defined as a perfect being. Then you said that God was defined as the being that created everything. These two definitions are not the same.
AQwertyZ wrote:
Humans are absolutely notorious for finding meaning in mere coincidences. Humans often reason that a coincidence was too unlikely to have occurred without a causal agent, whether that be a god, a four leaf clover, etc.
Aw, sounds like you must be jealous of humans :P It's funny how you desperate you people are to discredit humans all the time.
mmbossman wrote:
I thought there was this one guy called Satan. You know God and Satan, Good and Evil, Right and Wrong...all that.
I thought there was this one guy called Satan. You know God and Satan, Good and Evil, Right and Wrong...all that.
yeah, but i was talking about the real god, not the christian god.
Ouzo wrote:
WHAT IF SATAN IS GOD????? THINK ABOUT IT
"just like moses lift up the snake in the desert, so must the son of man be uplifted." you know that the symbol of satan is a snake. and the bible says that when moses lift up the snake in the desert on a cross, it cured all people who looked at it... just like jesus.
the morning star (venus) is another symbol of satan, and in the revelation, john calls jesus the bright morning star...
HHS wrote:
First you said that God was defined as a perfect being. Then you said that God was defined as the being that created everything. These two definitions are not the same.
no, but they don't conflict. god can be both perfect and a creator.
DK64_MASTER wrote:
Is God a strong magentic force?
god is so many things, some people even say he is everything. and he must be, because jesus said that he is life (everything).
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
If I were God there would be no explicit sex on T.V.
Like little Opie eating pie when he made it with Aunt Bea
If I were God thou shall not worship false Billy Idols
And thou shall add the Book Of Flavor Flav to the Bible
Thou shall make fun of Hindus thou shall not make a "Speed 2"
If I were God that's what I'd do Heavens no
Hell yeah (x4)
If I were God I'd get a bunch of slaves to do everything
Norwegian lesbians that feed me grapes and know how to sing
If I were God thou shall not wear tube socks with Flip-Flops
Thou shall sit and thou shall spin thou shall even wife swap
Thou shall resist the Olsen Twins, thou shall not cut "Footloose"
If I were God that's what I'd do, Heavens no
Hell yeah (x4)
And when they nail my pimpled ass to the cross
I'll tell them I found Jesus that should throw them off
He goes by the name Jesús and steals hubcaps from cars
Oh Jesus can I borrow your crowbar?
To pry these God damn nails out they're beginning to hurt
Crucified and all I got was this lousy T-shirt
"I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!" I'll sing as I'm flogged
Yeah that's what I would do if I were God
So vote for me for Savior and you'll go to Heaven
Your lame duck Lord is like Kevin Spacey in "Seven"
With creepy threats of H-E-Double-Hockey-Stick
You just can't teach an old God new tricks
But would I be a good Messiah with my low self-esteem?
If I don't believe in myself would that be blasphemy?
Just sport some crummy "holier than thou" facade
Yeah that's what I would do if I were God
I'm sciencing as fast as I can !
______________________________________
<adelikat> once more balls enter the picture, everything gets a lot more entertraining
<adelikat> mmmmm yummy penises
"just like moses lift up the snake in the desert, so must the son of man be uplifted." you know that the symbol of satan is a snake. and the bible says that when moses lift up the snake in the desert on a cross, it cured all people who looked at it... just like jesus.
the morning star (venus) is another symbol of satan, and in the revelation, john calls jesus the bright morning star...
You're on to something there, but you have to stop believing in Jesus. Jesus is the Christian concept of God, and you have sworn that you do not believe in the Christian concept of God. This is binding.
nfq wrote:
HHS wrote:
First you said that God was defined as a perfect being. Then you said that God was defined as the being that created everything. These two definitions are not the same.
no, but they don't conflict. god can be both perfect and a creator.
Yep, they can, but "God" has to be defined as either one, or the other, or both. Not in two different ways, first as one thing and then as another.
nfq wrote:
DK64_MASTER wrote:
Is God a strong magentic force?
god is so many things, some people even say he is everything. and he must be, because jesus said that he is life (everything).
But Jesus is the Christian god, which we don't believe in. So he can't have said that. And, if you say that God is everything, and also say that God is perfect, then everything must be perfect, which is false. Therefore, either God isn't everything, or isn't perfect.
Fabian wrote:
What if god was one of us?
THINK ABOUT IT
Thanks, but I'm afraid not :P
mmbossman wrote:
If I were God I'd get a bunch of slaves to do everything
Norwegian lesbians that feed me grapes and know how to sing
We have taken note of that, too. The Norwegian Department of Justice is aware of your poem and has alerted Interpol.
"perfect" as a definition is meaningless without a secondary argument, namely one specifying in what property/aspect the definiendum is perfect. "thing that created everything" is meaningful, but the existence of such a thing would violate causality. if you meant "thing that created everything else", that would be too broad, since it could plausably include the big bang.
i define "god" as an intelligence with an extensive ability to use magic (cf clarke's third law), so i think the existence of gods is probable. in any case i'm confident that we'll become god(s).
"perfect" as a definition is meaningless without a secondary argument, namely one specifying in what property/aspect the definiendum is perfect.
To be perfect in every way means to be non-existent. To be complete means to be dead (imagine a "perfect" TAS: 0 seconds). Our desire and will makes us alive, and desire means that we are not complete, we lack something and we want more. There's nothing wrong with imperfections, they're no more imperfect than perfection. "Imperfect" just means expanding, and perfect means complete.
"thing that created everything" is meaningful, but the existence of such a thing would violate causality.
How?
if you meant "thing that created everything else", that would be too broad, since it could plausably include the big bang.
God/life is way too big to be explained with a few little words. The Big Bam didn't create anything, it's just a bang imagined by scientists because of the redshift. God didn't create the world once in some distant past, he creates the world in 7 days, every day a little bit different.
God/life is way too big to be explained with a few little words. The Big Bam didn't create anything, it's just a bang imagined by scientists because of the redshift. God didn't create the world once in some distant past, he creates the world in 7 days, every day a little bit different.
nfq might as well have wrote:
The earth isn't round, it's just a curvature imagined by scientists because of this.
Even most religious people admit that the creation myth is just a metaphor. Police radars work using the same redshift principal. It isn't just imagined. If the universe was not created in the distant past, why did God try so hard to make it look like it was. Most galaxies are too far away for light to have reached earth in anything less than several billion years. Are you suggesting God created the light en-route to earth? I can think of no group of people more ignorant than young-earth creationists.
"perfect" as a definition is meaningless without a secondary argument, namely one specifying in what property/aspect the definiendum is perfect.
To be perfect in every way means to be non-existent. To be complete means to be dead (imagine a "perfect" TAS: 0 seconds). Our desire and will makes us alive, and desire means that we are not complete, we lack something and we want more. There's nothing wrong with imperfections, they're no more imperfect than perfection. "Imperfect" just means expanding, and perfect means complete.
thank you for that irrelevent insight.
"thing that created everything" is meaningful, but the existence of such a thing would violate causality.
How?
because such a thing would have created itself, which, under normal rules of causality, would mean that it did so before its own beginning, and causality together with relativity imply that pastward time travel is impossible.
if you meant "thing that created everything else", that would be too broad, since it could plausably include the big bang.
God/life is way too big to be explained with a few little words. The Big Bam didn't create anything, it's just a bang imagined by scientists because of the redshift. God didn't create the world once in some distant past, he creates the world in 7 days, every day a little bit different.
the redshift isn't the strongest evidence of the big bang, there's also the microwave background. and when you say that "god/life is way too big to be explained with a few little words", what is that supposed to mean? anyway, this is also irrelevent to the matter of defining "god".
Question: How much acid and/or peyote have you done in your lifetime, nfq?
drugs sound like fun, but i've never used any because everyone always said they are bad for you. maybe that's why i'm so crazy.
AQwertyZ wrote:
Even most religious people admit that the creation myth is just a metaphor.
it's a metaphor, but it's still true.
If the universe was not created in the distant past, why did God try so hard to make it look like it was.
what i mean is that the universe has existed forever, and god is the one recreating it every day.
Bob A wrote:
because such a thing would have created itself, which, under normal rules of causality, would mean that it did so before its own beginning,
god is eternal. he is not created, he is the creator.
the perfect being doesn't have to be created in order to exist, because the perfect being is non-being, non-existence.
and when you say that "god/life is way too big to be explained with a few little words", what is that supposed to mean?
it means that the definition of god has to be broad because god is big.
Joined: 3/11/2004
Posts: 1058
Location: Reykjavík, Ísland
nfq wrote:
If the universe was not created in the distant past, why did God try so hard to make it look like it was.
what i mean is that the universe has existed forever, and god is the one recreating it every day.
If the universe has existed forever, how could it have been replaced every day?
nfq wrote:
the perfect being doesn't have to be created in order to exist, because the perfect being is non-being, non-existence.
I think you just said there is no god. Either that, or I can prove it to you now: Nobody's perfect, therefore god is nobody, therefore god doesn't exist. BAM.
nfq wrote:
it means that the definition of god has to be broad because god is big.
No, it means you don't know what you think God is, so you need to cast a net as wide as the universe so no one can start discussing it.
god is eternal. he is not created, he is the creator.
then you don't believe in such a "god", because "god", by that definition, as i said, would have created itself.
Not to defend nfq here, but I don't believe that's accurate. If such a god also created or otherwise formed time (eg, before the creation there were no dimensions) then there's no reason to posit causality before the creation event and no need for such a being to have a creator at all.
someone is out there who will like you. take off your mask so they can find you faster.
I support the new Nekketsu Kouha Kunio-kun.
