0
   

Did God Create Him/Herself?

 
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2005 10:06 pm
neologist wrote:
Derevon! Eorl! C'mon Back!


Here I am...

What happened.....b'GEERKK ! Shocked

Chaos!

I see some folks are assuming that

1) You can't create something out of nothing
2) Therefore one or more creators must exist

Both of these things are wrong, and even if they weren't you would have proved that your god was nothing.

Since forever people have said "I have no explaination - therefore it must be a god" but everyday another rational explanantion is found so that every day there is less and less need for gods to explain the unknown.
0 Replies
 
puglia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 07:15 pm
Material things are only a perception created in your brain, even solid rock is made of atoms which are mostly empty space, ie. even the nucleus is not solid, it is only made of information, everything in your consciousness is made out of information. Rent the DVD "What the bleep do we know? " It is full of leading edge findings and backed up by several hundred papers written by a Stanford Professor.

Note: YAH was not created. He is not a he. He is the only observer. We are all connected. Religion has been one of the most twisted evil distortions ever to manifest this planet.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 09:07 pm
I see what we have here is a failure to communicate.
0 Replies
 
puglia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 09:22 pm
I'm sorry Neo, Some men you just can't reach, but thats just the way they want it. Well thats the way they will get it.

Neo-What is it about the word PROVEN do you not understand? Do you know about the latest findings in quantum mechanics? Fact: Matter is more empty than material. Can you Dis-prove this? Not.

Every time science has come out in another direction due to unavoidable conclusions and additional findings, the rest of the same community is slow to respond, in some cases it causes division for long periods of time.

If I say to you, " YAH was always here " I could mean for instance: the spoken word or the vibration (sound) of YAH has always been heard. But by what, or whom? Or conversely. it could be interpreted as: YAH could only be here if someone, not something (elements) hears him. So such a person would say a tree in the forest only exists if someone witnesses it in existance. If its existance was not witnessed, than the only thing they will believe is that trees exist (that is if they have seen a tree in a forest somewhere), where or when could not be conceived by such a person. In quantum mechanics we now know that the tree exists and we have seen the tree.

But why believe Puglia? He wants to fool you with mis-information to screw up your mind. NOT ! I want you to ascend. That has become one of my purposes. I am not mis-informed. I have seen how I can change the way a person behaves just by my will to do so. I'm not so sure however that it works very well on the internet. Have I opened at least one mind here? If so all my time was worth the effort.

LOVE YAH ALL.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 09:39 pm
I'm well aware of the 'emptiness of matter'. Remember the bible was written for the unlettered and ordinary. If one needed an understanding of quantum mechanics to understand God's will, would that be fair? I don't think so.

Two truths cannot be contradictory. Where there is discrepancy, there must be an explanation rooted in the premises. Merely stating the conclusions more forcefully will not suffice. I'm reminded of Ambrose Bierce's definition: "Positive: Mistaken at the top of one's voice."
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 09:54 pm
neologist wrote:
I see what we have here is a failure to communicate.


OK, Dub Taylor . . .

http://www.prisonflicks.com/images/CHLCaptain.jpg
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 09:57 pm
Oh! Good grief. I forget to include the quotation marks and who would you think might be the first to notice? How are you this fine evening, Mr. Setanta?
0 Replies
 
LionTamerX
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 09:57 pm
neologist wrote:
I see what we have here is a failure to communicate.


Yep... that jess about sum it up...
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 09:58 pm
neologist wrote:
Oh! Good grief. I forget to include the quotation marks and who would you think might be the first to notice? How are you this fine evening, Mr. Setanta?


I ain't dead yet . . .
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 10:00 pm
Just tell the folks from the Neptune Society.
0 Replies
 
puglia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 10:01 pm
Can one object be in two places at the same time? Yes. PROVEN quantum mechanics. They have actually photographed it.

Can two truths exist at the same time in the same place? Yes.

I think you and I responded at the same time, since your post appeared after mine right when I posted it.

By the way, the bible was written by a man, or men. And their main objective was to control other men. Religion has been used to keep the knowledge away from the common man. I see it has done a very good job of closing minds and obscuring the truth from "the common man"

PUG
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 10:03 pm
How can you be
In two places at once
When you're not anywhere at all?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 10:06 pm
puglia wrote:
Can one object be in two places at the same time? Yes. PROVEN quantum mechanics. They have actually photographed it.

Can two truths exist at the same time in the same place? Yes.

I think you and I responded at the same time, since your post appeared after mine right when I posted it.

By the way, the bible was written by a man, or men. And their main objective was to control other men. Religion has been used to keep the knowledge away from the common man. I see it has done a very good job of closing minds and obscuring the truth from "the common man"

PUG
Emphasis mine. If you allow the assertion that bible writers might not have been faithful to the truth, you invalidate the entire bible. Either you reconcile the bible or it becomes just another interesting piece of literature; and the genealogies become a needless bore.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 10:11 pm
Setanta wrote:
How can you be
In two places at once
When you're not anywhere at all?
I've seen it where one has had two mutually exclusive ideas in his head without giving thought to either.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 10:12 pm
puglia wrote:
Can one object be in two places at the same time? Yes. PROVEN quantum mechanics. They have actually photographed it.

This is false. An object can have a probability density of possible positions, but that isn't quite the same thing as being in two places at once. It's more like having no specific position. They certainly have not photographed it. Objects with masses low enough for any of these effects to be significant cannot be photographed because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle for position and momentum. If you disagree, post a citation.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 10:20 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
puglia wrote:
Can one object be in two places at the same time? Yes. PROVEN quantum mechanics. They have actually photographed it.

This is false. An object can have a probability density of possible positions, but that isn't quite the same thing as being in two places at once. It's more like having no specific position. They certainly have not photographed it. Objects with masses low enough for any of these effects to be significant cannot be photographed because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle for position and momentum. If you disagree, post a citation.
This is exactly what I mean. How can I expect my friend Joe Sixpack to follow this deep scientific inquiry? (Of course, I understand it perfectly. HARRUMPHH!) Laughing
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 10:25 pm
neologist wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
puglia wrote:
Can one object be in two places at the same time? Yes. PROVEN quantum mechanics. They have actually photographed it.

This is false. An object can have a probability density of possible positions, but that isn't quite the same thing as being in two places at once. It's more like having no specific position. They certainly have not photographed it. Objects with masses low enough for any of these effects to be significant cannot be photographed because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle for position and momentum. If you disagree, post a citation.
This is exactly what I mean. How can I expect my friend Joe Sixpack to follow this deep scientific inquiry? (Of course, I understand it perfectly. HARRUMPHH!) Laughing

When you spend years in school studying some subject - Physics for instance - and spend a very great amount of time working to understand it, it is very annoying to have people just opining away, making it up as they go along.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 10:58 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
When you spend years in school studying some subject - Physics for instance - and spend a very great amount of time working to understand it, it is very annoying to have people just opining away, making it up as they go along.
I admire your degree of scholarship which far surpasses anything I have accomplished. The point I was trying to make was for the benefit of pug, that the bible must stand alone as a work of simplicity. It may take effort to learn it; but the concepts are not profound beyond comprehension of the average man.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 11:07 pm
neologist wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
When you spend years in school studying some subject - Physics for instance - and spend a very great amount of time working to understand it, it is very annoying to have people just opining away, making it up as they go along.
I admire your degree of scholarship which far surpasses anything I have accomplished. The point I was trying to make was for the benefit of pug, that the bible must stand alone as a work of simplicity. It may take effort to learn it; but the concepts are not profound beyond comprehension of the average man.

You're giving me too much credit. When selecting a vocation, most people probably just take the path of least resistance. I realized very early in my life that for me, it was science/math/logic/programming etc. I have to believe that it would be the same for history, music, or any other subject. When you've sat through dozens of courses, and worked thousands of homework problems to gain a little understanding, you really don't take kindly to people presenting a lot of uninformed musing as fact.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 11:12 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
You're giving me too much credit. When selecting a vocation, most people probably just take the path of least resistance. I realized very early in my life that for me, it was science/math/logic/programming etc. I have to believe that it would be the same for history, music, or any other subject. When you've sat through dozens of courses, and worked thousands of homework problems to gain a little understanding, you really don't take kindly to people presenting a lot of uninformed musing as fact.


You've got that right. You may well imagine, then, how i react to people retailing historical fairy tales, after i've spent my life reading in the hope of gaining just a little insight.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 11:52:40