A question theists never seem to answer:

3t7
3t7's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2008-06-16
User is offlineOffline
A question theists never seem to answer:

The recent 0+0 thread started me thinking about this: One poster in that thread had called Llama to account for the theistic belief that God had created the universe out of nothing. His question didn't get very far (it never has in my experience) and Llama really just shrugged it off. I then began to recollect that I had observed pretty much the same thing happen many times before, so I decided to create a thread dedicated to that specific question. At first I thought it would be a non-starter since all the theists would have to do is appeal to God's omnipotence as an easy out, but, the more I thought about it, the less it seemed to me that theists could get off so easily. The difficult part is that even most theists do not believe that omnipotence includes the ability to do the logically impossible, and I will argue the creation ex nihilo is a logical impossibility.

 

So, without further a due, my argument:

 

P1. God cannot do that which is logically impossible (e.g. make a square circle etc.).

P2. To create something out of nothing is logically impossible.

C. Therefore, God could not have have created the universe out of nothing..

 

Going through the points:

 

Premise One:This seems relatively uncontroversial since many apologists agree, and even require for their own benefit, it to be true since it solves thorny problems that result from maintaining that God is not to be beholden to the laws of logic (I'd love to see a theist deny it though since the ramifications are really fun).

 

Premise Two: Here is where I believe many theists will balk, so I'll give a further argument that creation from nothing is a logical contradiction:

 

The law of identity states a thing is what it is in itself. “Nothing” is, by definition, the lack of anything. Nothing has one, and only one, property, that of nonexistence. Since nothing is only that which doesn't exist, If it is the substance from which everything is made, then there isn't anything that can be made from nothing except that which is also nonexistent as a result. But things do exist. So to say that everything was made out of nothing is  logically contradicted by the mere fact that things do exist.

 

After writing this last paragraph, I felt like some theists might accuse me of equivocation, so I tried to think of how they might say, for instance, that “nothing” is not a substance and that God did not use a substance called “nothing” from which to create the world, but that what is meant by creation ex nihilo is God created something where there was formerly nothing etc. But, honestly, that seems to be a distinction without a difference. If I were then to ask the theist what material God did use to create everything, what else are they going to say other than “nothing” or what is logically equivalent to it, and they're right back in the same boat.

 

Another rebuttal they might use is to say God created the world from part of Himself, but that seems to contradict theology. If God created the world of himself, then the world is part of God, and so is Satan, hell, sin etc. which I believe most theists would deny. If they try to say that God created the world from a part of himself but that it is no longer part of himself, then they are going to run afoul of logical possibility once again, but I'll only address that argument if it arises.

 

Conclusion: I don't see how this can be denied if one accepts P1 and P2.

 

And from here we can argue:

 

P1. The Bible claims that God created the universe from nothing.

P2. It is logically impossible for God to have created the universe out of nothing.

C. Therefor, the Bible is flawed, and, God as depicted in the Bible, cannot be the real God since he is depicted as doing the logically impossible.

 

One last note is that, since the universe is required to be here anyway, then why not just use Occam's Razor to eliminate the un-parsimonious part of things, i.e. God.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
bump.(The sound of crickets

bump.

(The sound of crickets chirping is deafening.)

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
My guess is your theists

My guess is your theists will declare that god is outside the constructs of logic, so an all powerful being would have the answer to the squared circle.


3t7
3t7's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2008-06-16
User is offlineOffline
stuntgibbon wrote:My guess

stuntgibbon wrote:

My guess is your theists will declare that god is outside the constructs of logic, so an all powerful being would have the answer to the squared circle.

Hi stuntgibbon, thanks for the reply.

The thing is, as I mentioned, if theists deny that God is subject to the laws of logic, then that raises many problems. I'll mention just one: If God is not subject to logic, then he can say what is false and it still be truthful. He could say that, 'If we believe in him, we will have eternal life', and it be a true statement even though no one who believes in him will have eternal life. So, if God is not subject to logic, we would have no reason to believe in what he promises us because he could be a truthful god who never keeps promises.


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
However, a theist at this

However, a theist at this point is already past what makes any real sense.  By saying they think god is outside logic (and for the presuppers, assume god invented logic), they're already showing they have no care for what makes logical sense.  It's all just tail chasing, say whatever they want to, ignore facts and logic and continue back on their way. 

They'll run back to some notion that god has it figured out even if it doesn't make sense to "mortal" minds.


Bulldog
Superfan
Bulldog's picture
Posts: 333
Joined: 2007-08-04
User is offlineOffline
You have to remember, these

You have to remember, these are people who will tell you god can create something too heavy for him to lift but he's still able to lift it.  Logic is an alien concept to morons.  They shake off what doesn't agree with their world view and simply say that god can do it, that mortals are too feeble to understand and must simply accept any contradictions in logic.

"Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society." Thomas Jefferson
www.myspace.com/kenhill5150


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
If God was there to create,

If God was there to create, then doesn't that mean, by definition, there was not the "absence of anything"?

A more accurate description of the problem (I believe) might be, Is the creation of something out of nothing but yourself logically impossible?

 


Luckhuda
Luckhuda's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:If God

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

If God was there to create, then doesn't that mean, by definition, there was not the "absence of anything"?

A more accurate description of the problem (I believe) might be, Is the creation of something out of nothing but yourself logically impossible?

 

 

way to dodge the question

He was one of those men who think that the world can be saved by writing a pamphlet. - Benjamin Disraeli


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:way to dodge the

Quote:
way to dodge the question

How is that dodging the question?  The original argument is based on a premise that "to create something from nothing is logically impossible."  I am inclined to agree, but that doesn't address the issue that the premise is inapplicable to the hypothetical.

If God existed, then he doesn't need to create "something from nothing" but rather just "something from something"--that "something" being himself, i.e., create something from himself.

So tell me how I dodged the question/argument?

I suppose it's possible.. but if I did.. then I need some clarification.  Is the argument contending that (1) God, assuming he existed and was only limited by what is logically possible to do, cannot create something from himself; or (2) that God, assuming he existed, is not "something" for the purpose of this argument?

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
3t7 wrote:  P1.

3t7 wrote:

 

P1. God cannot do that which is logically impossible (e.g. make a square circle etc.).

P2. To create something out of nothing is logically impossible.

C. Therefore, God could not have have created the universe out of nothing..

 

Welcome 3t7.

This will probably not work on most Christians or believers because they will simply tell you only God knows or various other comments where it is known only to God and is not for us to know. They don't care if their views are illogical in your or my perception as we can't know that which they have understood by their faith. In other words they are satisfied their delusion is the truth.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Luckhuda
Luckhuda's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:Quote:way

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Quote:
way to dodge the question

How is that dodging the question?  The original argument is based on a premise that "to create something from nothing is logically impossible."  I am inclined to agree, but that doesn't address the issue that the premise is inapplicable to the hypothetical.

If God existed, then he doesn't need to create "something from nothing" but rather just "something from something"--that "something" being himself, i.e., create something from himself.

So tell me how I dodged the question/argument?

I suppose it's possible.. but if I did.. then I need some clarification.  Is the argument contending that (1) God, assuming he existed and was only limited by what is logically possible to do, cannot create something from himself; or (2) that God, assuming he existed, is not "something" for the purpose of this argument?

 

 

"

Another rebuttal they might use is to say God created the world from part of Himself, but that seems to contradict theology. If God created the world of himself, then the world is part of God, and so is Satan, hell, sin etc. which I believe most theists would deny. If they try to say that God created the world from a part of himself but that it is no longer part of himself, then they are going to run afoul of logical possibility once again, but I'll only address that argument if it arises.

 

Conclusion: I don't see how this can be denied if one accepts P1 and P2.

 "

What you are suggesting has been addressed, and you didn't answer anything... just assessed the question in a different way

He was one of those men who think that the world can be saved by writing a pamphlet. - Benjamin Disraeli


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:If God created the

Quote:
If God created the world of himself, then the world is part of God, and so is Satan, hell, sin etc. which I believe most theists would deny.

If I clipped my fingers nails and made some sculpture out of spent nail clipings, the sculpture would be made up of parts of me.. it would not, however, be "part of me."

Quote:
If they try to say that God created the world from a part of himself but that it is no longer part of himself, then they are going to run afoul of logical possibility once again, but I'll only address that argument if it arises.

How exactly is that? I just argued it above.. and it seems pretty clear that it can be logically made.

Quote:
What you are suggesting has been addressed, and you didn't answer anything... just assessed the question in a different way

Umm.. I didn't.  I assessed your question, yes.  But I wasn't restating the same question in a different way.. I was saying there are completely different premises, ones that do not necessitate the conclusion you supposed.

 


Luckhuda
Luckhuda's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:If I clipped my

 

Quote:
If I clipped my fingers nails and made some sculpture out of spent nail clipings, the sculpture would be made up of parts of me.. it would not, however, be "part of me."

ok, but what part of himself could he have used?

 

Quote:

Umm.. I didn't.  I assessed your question, yes.  But I wasn't restating the same question in a different way.. I was saying there are completely different premises, ones that do not necessitate the conclusion you supposed. 

 

fair enough, I just took note of the topic title, and browsed to discover your post which really didn't answer anything and seemed to ignore the part of the OP's argument that suggested that the assertion you were making was contradictory, thats why I accused you of dodging the question.

He was one of those men who think that the world can be saved by writing a pamphlet. - Benjamin Disraeli


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:ok, but what part of

Quote:
ok, but what part of himself could he have used?

I 'unno.  Heh.


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
3t7 wrote:P2. To create

3t7 wrote:
P2. To create something out of nothing is logically impossible.

To create something out of nothing would be, at best, a physical impossibility. But then certain models of the universe suggest that it is actually possible for something to arise from nothing, meaning that it is physically possible and therefore would be logically possible. If something can be physically possible but logically impossible then there's a flaw in our understanding of logic and all these arguments become invalid.

Believers generally consider God to be independent of physical reality. Also we are discussing the creation of physical reality so the physical rules are irrelevant anyway since they didn't exist before they were created.

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
3t7 wrote:stuntgibbon

3t7 wrote:

stuntgibbon wrote:

My guess is your theists will declare that god is outside the constructs of logic, so an all powerful being would have the answer to the squared circle.

Hi stuntgibbon, thanks for the reply.

The thing is, as I mentioned, if theists deny that God is subject to the laws of logic, then that raises many problems. I'll mention just one: If God is not subject to logic, then he can say what is false and it still be truthful. He could say that, 'If we believe in him, we will have eternal life', and it be a true statement even though no one who believes in him will have eternal life. So, if God is not subject to logic, we would have no reason to believe in what he promises us because he could be a truthful god who never keeps promises.

Well, I can give you the only coherent 'God' framework for it:

1)God is outside the constructs of Logic.

2)God specifically created existence in such a way as to ensure that this question would arise.

3)God is not just an unreliable source, he's an active liar, sadist, and overall right bastard.

 

Really now, an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being becomes just *so* much more in-line with the observable universe if you proceed from the standpoint that such a being is a lying prick that enjoys our pain, misery, and deaths, like a sadistic toddler w/sea monkeys. Eye-wink

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Assuming a beginning seems a

Assuming a beginning seems a most logical error of human intellect !

Why a beginning, first cause ???  WHY why why, and such superstitions , asked a laughing Buddha  ....  a creation of my mind indulged in imagination of this AWE !  


3t7
3t7's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2008-06-16
User is offlineOffline
response to Rhads posts

@RhadTheGizmo.

Thanks for your response,

The main point that needs to be addressed is whether God can make something out of himself that is then no longer part of himself.

No matter what you create out of your own parts, you can really only change one thing about them, their form. What I mean is that, in one sense, if your finger nails are no longer attached to you, you can then say they are no longer part of you and, if you create something out of them, you can say you created something out of yourself that is no longer yourself. But, in another sense, they still are what they always were: your finger nails (just rearranged), and that essential fact about their identity remains the same, they just reside in a different location. Even if you burn them, you have not really changed their essence from what they were when they were attached to you. They still exist as matter with material properties and are just arranged very differently. This is what I was alluding to in saying that it isn't logically possible for God to make the universe of himself and have it no longer be part of himself. If God made the world out of himself, then it is only possible that he changed the form of part of himself and not its essence. To change the essence of something is what is logically contradictory. You can change a circle into a square, but you can't change the essence of what a circle is into the essence of what a square is. It follows that all God could really do in creating the world, without contradicting logic, is to merely rearrange part of himself and trans-locate (for lack of a better term) part of himself. I don't think it is logically contradictory to say, in one sense, the end result might no longer be part of him, but, in a very important sense it still would have to be. That brings us to the problem: The essence of the world seems to be contradictory to the essence of God. God is usually held to be entirely spirit lacking physical substance whose essence is identical to his being. He is timeless, immortal, omnipotent, necessary... but, out of that, he is supposed to have created all the physical, temporal, contingent things that have an entirely different essence. That seems to contradict logic.

Also, if what God created retains his essential character, we still run into the same problems with Satan, hell, sin etc. being part of God. There is the problem of those things being a generation of his essence – which I think many theists would deny. After all, the essence of God is perfection, sinlessness etc. Even taking into account free-will, we have the essence of God choosing to sin, but to sin means to go against God, so we have God going against himself.

 

 

I got kind of wordy and redundant with this one, sorry.


Josiah
Posts: 7
Joined: 2008-06-24
User is offlineOffline
A good theist would simply

A good theist would simply suggest that you are making assumptions about the nature of god and then trying to apply logic to it. Humans lack the capacity to understand the full breadth of his being so our attempts fail from the outset. I just can't figure out why he made such pathetic creatures that they couldn't understand the nature of their creator.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Need more breaks in your

Need more breaks in your statements.. makes it easier to read Sticking out tongue

Quote:
The main point that needs to be addressed is whether God can make something out of himself that is then no longer part of himself.

You clarify this later on.. by "no longer part of himself" you mean "no longer sharing of the same essence."

I will clarify "essence" later on.. because I think it is important to define it.. to have a common understanding regarding it.

Quote:
No matter what you create out of your own parts, you can really only change one thing about them, their form.

True.

Quote:
What I mean is that, in one sense, if your finger nails are no longer attached to you, you can then say they are no longer part of you and, if you create something out of them, you can say you created something out of yourself that is no longer yourself.

True.

Quote:
But, in another sense, they still are what they always were: your finger nails (just rearranged), and that essential fact about their identity remains the same, they just reside in a different location.

True.

Quote:
Even if you burn them, you have not really changed their essence from what they were when they were attached to you. They still exist as matter with material properties and are just arranged very differently.

True.

You have stated (what I believe to be, something akin to) the law of conservation of matter and energy.

Quote:
This is what I was alluding to in saying that it isn't logically possible for God to make the universe of himself and have it no longer be part of himself.

I.e., "to create something entirely or in-partly new"--i.e., "to create something that has a quality that is neither shared by the creator nor derivative of some quality of the creator."

Quote:
If God made the world out of himself, then it is only possible that he changed the form of part of himself and not its essence.

To change the essence of something is what is logically contradictory. You can change a circle into a square, but you can't change the essence of what a circle is into the essence of what a square is.

True.

Quote:
It follows that all God could really do in creating the world, without contradicting logic, is to merely rearrange part of himself and trans-locate (for lack of a better term) part of himself.

True.

Quote:
I don't think it is logically contradictory to say, in one sense, the end result might no longer be part of him, but, in a very important sense it still would have to be.

True.

Quote:
That brings us to the problem: The essence of the world seems to be contradictory to the essence of God. God is usually held to be entirely spirit lacking physical substance whose essence is identical to his being.

I don't think your last sentence make sense.. but, assuming I do understand it, and assuming your presumption regarding the essence of God is correct--is this this presumption about God what he is now? or what he has always been?

A retort to this might be "Common understanding of God is that he is unchanging"--but, once again, is this merely the "common understanding of God now, or always"?

Quote:
He is timeless, immortal, omnipotent, necessary... but, out of that, he is supposed to have created all the physical, temporal, contingent things that have an entirely different essence. That seems to contradict logic.

It only contradicts logic if the assertion that "what is physical, temporal, or contingent, are cannot be derived from what is spiritual."

Now.. while one might think this is common sense (and while "spiritual" has its own problems with regard to how it is defined, what its qualities are), let me just state.. that I would think it contradicts logic to say that "what is a diamond can be derived from a piece of coal" unless someone showed me otherwise.  Since (as people here rightly argue) what is "spiritual" or "supernatural" cannot really be scientifically tested, or they have no positive ontology, it cannot be said what can or cannot be derived from them.

Point being.. what the universe is does not need to ostensibly appear to be a derivative of what God for it to be a derivative because (a) what God is after the creation of the universe does not need to ostensibly appear to be what he was before the creation of the universe (e.g., a body from which a skeleton is take to create a "skeleton sculpture" will not appear much like what it did before the "skeleton sculpture" was created); and (b) what has been derived does not need to ostensibly appear like what it was derived from (e.g., a diamond doesn't ostensibly look like a piece of coal).

Quote:
Also, if what God created retains his essential character, we still run into the same problems with Satan, hell, sin etc. being part of God.

That was never established.  But.. even assuming that it is.. what is God's "essential character"--- if God's "essential character" is as simple as "to exist"--then where is the problem?

Quote:
There is the problem of those things being a generation of his essence – which I think many theists would deny. After all, the essence of God is perfection, sinlessness etc. Even taking into account free-will, we have the essence of God choosing to sin, but to sin means to go against God, so we have God going against himself.

I'm going to try to deal with this simply.. and I may oversimplify it.. so feel free to attack it.

If I have created a "perfect computer program," and then take one line of code out of that "perfect computer program," then it can be said that the second program is "imperfect," "derivative of the first," yet "sharing in the essence of the first."

So I'm not sure there is as much of a problem as you think.
 


JustAnotherBeliever
TheistBronze Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 2008-06-14
User is offlineOffline
this same paradox applies...

"Existence exists"...that is accepted as an axiom. If God=Existence then we all agree.....but its not saying too much.....now everything that exists, exists as something. But God is supposed to be pure being. If God were "some thing" he would not be pure being. He would be a type of being. So technically God does not exist. If he is "no thing" you can technically say the universe came from nothing. Todangst would say that the statement "God exists" is incoherent and meaningless if you mean what I mean by God. But if you just mean God=existence its ok. So by ascribing my meaning makes it meaningless. And technically he is right. So, to say that "something has always existed" is meaningless. But thats the definition of God.

So I have exchanged one problem for another...creating something from nothing doesnt seem like the problem to me...but the fact that God is nothing and yet creates, performs actions, interacts with mankind....thats the problem.


3t7
3t7's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2008-06-16
User is offlineOffline
stuntgibbon wrote:However, a

stuntgibbon wrote:

However, a theist at this point is already past what makes any real sense.  By saying they think god is outside logic (and for the presuppers, assume god invented logic), they're already showing they have no care for what makes logical sense.  It's all just tail chasing, say whatever they want to, ignore facts and logic and continue back on their way. 

They'll run back to some notion that god has it figured out even if it doesn't make sense to "mortal" minds.

I'm sure some theists would prove you right. The mentality can be pretty low. Some bozo commenting on youtube, replying  to atheists' rebuttals of Ray Comfort's half baked banana argument, said "you just don't understand things of the LORD"


3t7
3t7's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2008-06-16
User is offlineOffline
Bulldog wrote:You have to

Bulldog wrote:

You have to remember, these are people who will tell you god can create something too heavy for him to lift but he's still able to lift it.  Logic is an alien concept to morons.  They shake off what doesn't agree with their world view and simply say that god can do it, that mortals are too feeble to understand and must simply accept any contradictions in logic.

Hi Bulldog, thanks for the reply. See my last post.


IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH
TheistTroll
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2008-06-23
User is offlineOffline
 I don't accept your first

 I don't accept your first premise, but for the sake of the argument, I'll play along. 

Premise two you ask? What if the Universe is merely God's thought? The thing that separates man from everything else is that man is not Gods thought but their own thought? The idea of nothing could be merely a concept of God's to help his art project make sense to the observers (us). 

 

You don't have to convince me that the Bible is stories. But what about the moral lessons that it encourages are so agitating to you?

We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR


3t7
3t7's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2008-06-16
User is offlineOffline
Hi ParanoidAgnostic, thanks

Hi ParanoidAgnostic, thanks for the response.

Quote:
ParanoidAgnostic wrote:

To create something out of nothing would be, at best, a physical impossibility. But then certain models of the universe suggest that it is actually possible for something to arise from nothing, meaning that it is physically possible and therefore would be logically possible.


I disagree on both counts. You don't refer to anything specific, but I'm not aware of  any hypothesis of cosmic origins, any theory of physics, or any cosmological model  that posits nothing as the source of something. Quantum theory has virtual particles popping in and out of existence, but they borrow their energy from the vacuum.  Modern hypotheses of cosmic origins also always posit something as being the original material, Whether it is an unstable vacuum state, interacting branes in a higher dimesional space, space that borrows from its dark energy via quantum fluctuation to create matter, or something else that isn't really nothing. Even in Newton's universe, empty space was something - it had dimension and an inbuilt notion of time.

Quote:
If something can be physically possible but logically impossible then there's a flaw in our understanding of logic and all these arguments become invalid.



As far as logically possible, I made an argument in my original post for why it isn't.

Quote:
Believers generally consider God to be independent of physical reality. Also we are discussing the creation of physical reality so the physical rules are irrelevant anyway since they didn't exist before they were created.


I'd argue that what we know as physical rules or laws cannot be irrelevant or arbitrary (even to God) because they embody logical principles. Now it could be the case that logic, as we understand it, is only a manifestation of the fact of our existence as physical beings in the physical world we happen to inhabit – that logic is merely a property of the physical world, and we only think it universal because we can't know any different. But, without going into the subject, I'll just state that there are reasons to think that it has some status of existence  not entirely identical with or bound to physical existence.
 


3t7
3t7's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2008-06-16
User is offlineOffline
Sorry everyone that I've

Sorry everyone that I've been so slow to respond to all your posts. I  really should have started this thread on a Friday. I've been too busy to post much during the week. I'll try and catch up with everyone this weekend


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

 I don't accept your first premise, but for the sake of the argument, I'll play along. 

Premise two you ask? What if the Universe is merely God's thought? The thing that separates man from everything else is that man is not Gods thought but their own thought? The idea of nothing could be merely a concept of God's to help his art project make sense to the observers (us). 

 

You don't have to convince me that the Bible is stories. But what about the moral lessons that it encourages are so agitating to you?

 

The OP has nothing to do with morals.  This is about the creation of the universe.

 

BTW, I might add some obvious points.

1. How was God created in the first place?  And if it was a spontaneous act of nature, then that same principle would apply to the BB.  In fact, knowing that the BB was a singularity and developed more complex intereactions as time went on (forming planets, et al), the BB is MUCH more likely than a Perfect Being spontaneously erupting out of nothingness.

 

Remember the old Creationist fallacy of a tornado in a junkyard not being able to make a 747?  In this tale, there is no junkyard, no tornado but a perfect 747 suddenly appears (and, by many Theist accounts - self-creates itself...)

 

2.  If God created the universe apart from himself, in WHAT did he put it?  It presupposes that SOMETHING existed outside of God in which to put something. (And we've established that God can't create something out of nothing).

 

Again, it was mentioned, but I'll rephrase.  If you cut your nails, you have created nail-clippings - but in order for them to be clippings, they must be apart from your fingers.  Which means the space between you and the new clippings must have existed.  If that space didn't already exist, then you would clip your nails, but they would still be attached to you.

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov


IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH
TheistTroll
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2008-06-23
User is offlineOffline
 Who says god had to be

 Who says god had to be created? Or who says he wasn't created by something we just can't comprehend yet because we're still relatively young. 

Where did that singularity come from and why did it occur? Why did the effects of that occurrence lead to thought? 

If the universe is merely gods thought, it requires no space to be placed in. 

When did I say space didn't exist?

We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Jack, I think you might

Jack, I think you might enjoy reading on "Pantheism" ideas. Was Jesus a pantheistic philosophy?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=pantheism&btnG=Search


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

 Who says god had to be created? Or who says he wasn't created by something we just can't comprehend yet because we're still relatively young. 

Where did that singularity come from and why did it occur? Why did the effects of that occurrence lead to thought? 

If the universe is merely gods thought, it requires no space to be placed in. 

When did I say space didn't exist?

 

Honestly, I don't know what you think, or that you do either.

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov


Boon Docks
Posts: 415
Joined: 2007-03-04
User is offlineOffline
Did you ever think a theist

Did you ever think a theist could give a logical answer to this thread?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
It wasn't created from

It wasn't created from nothing, it was created from everything.

 

Ha! and you thought my previous posts were whack?

 


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Boon Docks wrote:Did you

Boon Docks wrote:

Did you ever think a theist could give a logical answer to this thread?

 

I keep hoping, but after five years, hope is fading....

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:I keep hoping, but

 

Quote:
I keep hoping, but after five years, hope is fading....

I thought my response was pretty logical...

 


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote: Quote:I

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

 

Quote:
I keep hoping, but after five years, hope is fading....

I thought my response was pretty logical...

 

 

Sigh... I know you do...

 

jk/ Eye-wink

 

yes, Rhad, lets bump your response and try to forget the train wreck that is Jack.

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov


IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH
TheistTroll
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2008-06-23
User is offlineOffline
I know what I believe, and

I know what I believe, and none of it contradicts the other. Are you so sure you can say the same?

 

We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR


fischer1121
Theist
Posts: 13
Joined: 2008-06-28
User is offlineOffline
3t7 wrote: The law of

3t7 wrote:

The law of identity states a thing is what it is in itself. “Nothing” is, by definition, the lack of anything. Nothing has one, and only one, property, that of nonexistence. Since nothing is only that which doesn't exist, If it is the substance from which everything is made, then there isn't anything that can be made from nothing except that which is also nonexistent as a result. But things do exist. So to say that everything was made out of nothing is  logically contradicted by the mere fact that things do exist.

 

After writing this last paragraph, I felt like some theists might accuse me of equivocation, so I tried to think of how they might say, for instance, that “nothing” is not a substance and that God did not use a substance called “nothing” from which to create the world, but that what is meant by creation ex nihilo is God created something where there was formerly nothing etc. But, honestly, that seems to be a distinction without a difference. If I were then to ask the theist what material God did use to create everything, what else are they going to say other than “nothing” or what is logically equivalent to it, and they're right back in the same boat.

 

I'm just your average joe schmo so I haven't looked into it much, but...

I would suppose it's like an author reading his own book back to himself, and we're a part of the listening audience. What was once in the mind of the author was spoken into existence; As He speaks it we are transported into a world of two-legged creatures standing upright who build civilizations on a very unique planet. They all follow the author's script as they are faced with a dilemna to follow God or not.

Authors have the power to place us in worlds of their own making - worlds that came from nothing. Now why couldn't God create a physical world from nothing?

I find it remarkable that atheists are willing to believe that the universe came out of nothing all the while finding fault in the Christian's belief that God created the universe out of nothing. A Creator God creating something out of nothing is logical. Nothing creating something out of nothing is illogical. Atleast the Christian view has an acting force.

In the end, this is not a logical argument preventing you from believing in God. It is just another manifestation of your moral rebellion against God. You don't want to live in a world subject to a divine Author so you choose to live your life in denial that the Author exists.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
fischer1121 wrote: Authors

fischer1121 wrote:

 

Authors have the power to place us in worlds of their own making - worlds that came from nothing. Now why couldn't God create a physical world from nothing?

Only when an author writes a book a whole new physical reality doesn't suddenly pop into existence it's only in the abstract. The claim a god zapped everything literally into being per Genesis is completely unprovable and contrary to observations. In fact my former religious affiliation, the Catholic Church realizing they could be painted into a corner now allow for the possibility evolution was utilized to bring about all we observe.

fischer1121 wrote:

I find it remarkable that atheists are willing to believe that the universe came out of nothing all the while finding fault in the Christian's belief that God created the universe out of nothing. A Creator God creating something out of nothing is logical. Nothing creating something out of nothing is illogical. Atleast the Christian view has an acting force.

I personally have no idea how the Universe got here or if it really is here. I perceive something and I interact with that I perceive. Adding another layer to the explanation only moves the question one layer up. So where did this guy god come from? You can pretend you have an acting force but you have only moved it up a step so you can cop out with god has always been. That still leaves a question that can't be answered. A creator god creating the Universe is not logical at all.

As far as you really know this god guy could simply be an intelligent entity that is millions of years beyond us in understanding the Universe. There would be no way you'd ever be able to tell because to you he'd seem all powerful and all knowing but might not actually be. He might love us alright like you love a Big Mac.

fischer1121 wrote:

In the end, this is not a logical argument preventing you from believing in God. It is just another manifestation of your moral rebellion against God. You don't want to live in a world subject to a divine Author so you choose to live your life in denial that the Author exists.

Actually my reason for no longer believing in the Christian God of Abe is all I have found in years of religious study including a graduate program at a Jesuit University is it is not true. What is? Not what I was taught. As to specifics, that takes many pages to clarify. You however are not open to consideration of reality based on your replies in this thread and chose to believe a fantasy tale. That is perfectly fine and you are free to use whatever crutch gets you through life.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Bulldog
Superfan
Bulldog's picture
Posts: 333
Joined: 2007-08-04
User is offlineOffline
At the risk of sounding like

At the risk of sounding like I Am God As You (no offense bud, you are one of my favorite posters, you're hilarious when I understand what you're saying, hell, even when I don't understand you), maybe we all are god.  Maybe god is some huge entity with a huge multiple personality disorder and each of us is a different personality? The collective of personalities are not aware that they are one and the same.  Just a thought, I don't believe it, just thought I would add a little twist to the thread.

"Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society." Thomas Jefferson
www.myspace.com/kenhill5150


fischer1121
Theist
Posts: 13
Joined: 2008-06-28
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Only when an author writes a book a whole new physical reality doesn't suddenly pop into existence it's only in the abstract. The claim a god zapped everything literally into being per Genesis is completely unprovable and contrary to observations. In fact my former religious affiliation, the Catholic Church realizing they could be painted into a corner now allow for the possibility evolution was utilized to bring about all we observe.

You find an author creating a world from nothing unremarkable because you also are not limited in the abstract. It is because you also can create abstract worlds that you find it believable. God is not limited in the abstract or the physical. Unlike you, He is also free to create physical worlds from nothing. Don't be like a man enraptured in the world of an author's latest novel, all-the-while denying that the author was capable of writing it.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I personally have no idea how the Universe got here or if it really is here. I perceive something and I interact with that I perceive. Adding another layer to the explanation only moves the question one layer up. So where did this guy god come from? You can pretend you have an acting force but you have only moved it up a step so you can cop out with god has always been. That still leaves a question that can't be answered. A creator god creating the Universe is not logical at all.

As far as you really know this god guy could simply be an intelligent entity that is millions of years beyond us in understanding the Universe. There would be no way you'd ever be able to tell because to you he'd seem all powerful and all knowing but might not actually be. He might love us alright like you love a Big Mac.

I'm sorry, but how is "God has always been" a cop-out? Christians say God has always been and you say nothing has always been. Nothing can create nothing, because nothing is nothing. So while Christians are left saying something logical, "God has always been", you are still left trying to figure out how nothing could create something.

Are you suggesting that God is just some alien with advanced technology that the ancients looked to as being supernatural? If so, you're still left with the problem of how this universe that that alien lives in came into being. In that case, you need a greater God.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Actually my reason for no longer believing in the Christian God of Abe is all I have found in years of religious study including a graduate program at a Jesuit University is it is not true. What is? Not what I was taught. As to specifics, that takes many pages to clarify. You however are not open to consideration of reality based on your replies in this thread and chose to believe a fantasy tale. That is perfectly fine and you are free to use whatever crutch gets you through life.

Informed Christians are much more open-minded to reality than atheists. Naturalist Atheists must believe that everything is mechanical, they are not free to believe in the supernatural. They have put themselves into a box. Christians, on the other hand, are able to look throughout the box as well as outside the box.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
the nothing arguement

The ONLY person I see ever arguing that something came from nothing tend to be the  believers in god, there was nothing and god created something from nothing. Many Atheists and many in here don't say it came from nothing at all, that this entire universe is the result of something, basically a singularity that expanded (the big bang theory is now being used here) and the amount of energy that was released caused over millions of years the formation of the planets, suns, elements, etc, etc, etc. So please show where atheists say everything came from nothing, oh and energy cannot be created nor destroyed so yeah that kinda puts god out of the requirement to create energy, and a natural explanation towards this universe, eliminating the necessity for a supernatural deity (supernatural really meaning we cannot explain it or is beyond nature which kinda eliminates itself from interacting with the natural anyways)


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:supernatural really

Quote:
supernatural really meaning we cannot explain it or is beyond nature which kinda eliminates itself from interacting with the natural anyways

I would tend to argue that "supernatural" merely means "cannot be explained based upon our current understanding of nature."

An eclipse, at one point, was thought to be supernatural.. now it's not.  So, in my mind, supernatural isn't really absolutely so.. in some objective sense.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
It can go both ways

some supernatural events are just merely unexplained things, others are things that are outside of this universe (this arguement being that god is a supernatural deity and is outside of the physical laws of this universe or outside of this universe) therefore unable to interact with this universe and all things inside of it


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:I

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

I know what I believe, and none of it contradicts the other. Are you so sure you can say the same?

 

    I absolutely can and DO. You however have not , yet. Good luck young thinker.

BTW, the bible Xain god, that silly god of abe, is lame. Get out from under that spell. Hell beans , why didn't he create us with at least the powers of "superman" ?  What a mean jerk. What a dumb god people invent !    .... Give me my wings , god fucking damn it !  Born to be teased, for all of my life ..... that prick.

    god of abe ---->         <---- me  , ( that fucker, that devil )    


fischer1121
Theist
Posts: 13
Joined: 2008-06-28
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:The ONLY

latincanuck wrote:

The ONLY person I see ever arguing that something came from nothing tend to be the  believers in god, there was nothing and god created something from nothing. Many Atheists and many in here don't say it came from nothing at all, that this entire universe is the result of something, basically a singularity that expanded (the big bang theory is now being used here) and the amount of energy that was released caused over millions of years the formation of the planets, suns, elements, etc, etc, etc. So please show where atheists say everything came from nothing, oh and energy cannot be created nor destroyed so yeah that kinda puts god out of the requirement to create energy, and a natural explanation towards this universe, eliminating the necessity for a supernatural deity (supernatural really meaning we cannot explain it or is beyond nature which kinda eliminates itself from interacting with the natural anyways)

I'm not sure you grasp the issue being discussed. We aren't discussing the Big Bang or Evolution because they are irrelevant here. They are simply an explanation of how existing things changed into other things. Why is something supernatural necessarily incapable of interacting with nature?


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:some supernatural

Quote:
some supernatural events are just merely unexplained things, others are things that are outside of this universe (this arguement being that god is a supernatural deity and is outside of the physical laws of this universe or outside of this universe) therefore unable to interact with this universe and all things inside of it

I understand this is what you're arguing.. but.. I guess the questions are:

(1) how can you distinguish between what is merely an unexplained thing and something that is outside of the universe?

(2) if something is outside of the universe, how would you know?

(3) if something was unable to interact with the universe an all things inside of it, how would you know?

I guess.. what I'm getting at is.. is that the assertion that "the supernatural cannot interact with the natural" is merely based upon the acceptance that a particular definition of "supernatural" is applicable in the case of God.

But why must "supernatural" be defined by the definition you are assuming is applicable in this case? Why couldn't it be the other? i.e., "God is merely something that interacts in the universe in as of yet unexplained way"?


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
fischer1121 wrote:You find

fischer1121 wrote:

You find an author creating a world from nothing unremarkable because you also are not limited in the abstract. It is because you also can create abstract worlds that you find it believable.

Yes.

fischer1121 wrote:

God is not limited in the abstract or the physical. Unlike you, He is also free to create physical worlds from nothing. Don't be like a man enraptured in the world of an author's latest novel, all-the-while denying that the author was capable of writing it.

 

You have this on personal observation or is this from the badly translated book handed down from the ignorant ancients?

fischer1121 wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I personally have no idea how the Universe got here or if it really is here. I perceive something and I interact with that I perceive. Adding another layer to the explanation only moves the question one layer up. So where did this guy god come from? You can pretend you have an acting force but you have only moved it up a step so you can cop out with god has always been. That still leaves a question that can't be answered. A creator god creating the Universe is not logical at all.

As far as you really know this god guy could simply be an intelligent entity that is millions of years beyond us in understanding the Universe. There would be no way you'd ever be able to tell because to you he'd seem all powerful and all knowing but might not actually be. He might love us alright like you love a Big Mac.

I'm sorry, but how is "God has always been" a cop-out? Christians say God has always been and you say nothing has always been. Nothing can create nothing, because nothing is nothing. So while Christians are left saying something logical, "God has always been", you are still left trying to figure out how nothing could create something.

What part of I have no idea how the Universe got here says anything about it being creating from nothing? Unlike you I admit I have no clue how it got here. It appears from the theories and science it may be related to the big bang, but who really knows. Until a better explanation comes along I'll use it with a high probability of possibility. If more data or proof changes these conclusions I'm open to it.  I have no need to make things up to justify being here, I appear to be here and that works for me. Adding the volcano and thunder god of ancient savages really doesn't help you. Where did this guy come from? You have to explain where God came from as it is no different than making nothing into something. 

fischer1121 wrote:


Are you suggesting that God is just some alien with advanced technology that the ancients looked to as being supernatural? If so, you're still left with the problem of how this universe that that alien lives in came into being. In that case, you need a greater God.

Not really, I was suggesting ancients would not have known the difference and neither would most people today. Actually, an advanced alien fits all of your descriptions perfectly. Unlike you, I'm not hung up on how the Universe got here, it appears to be. If I live long enough maybe more will be known, if not, not. No god of any sort is required.

fischer1121 wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Actually my reason for no longer believing in the Christian God of Abe is all I have found in years of religious study including a graduate program at a Jesuit University is it is not true. What is? Not what I was taught. As to specifics, that takes many pages to clarify. You however are not open to consideration of reality based on your replies in this thread and chose to believe a fantasy tale. That is perfectly fine and you are free to use whatever crutch gets you through life.

Informed Christians are much more open-minded to reality than atheists. Naturalist Atheists must believe that everything is mechanical, they are not free to believe in the supernatural. They have put themselves into a box. Christians, on the other hand, are able to look throughout the box as well as outside the box.

Informed or trained? You are free to believe only the one little fantasy from the Bible and no more. This is not open-minded but throttled thought. Where did you get the idea that I thought everything was mechanical? I claim I have no clue and that what I was taught as a Christian and a Catholic cannot be and is not true. Things I do not understand I simply say I have no idea or I don't know, I don't lay it on a clearly made up fantasy carried from a past civilization of ignorance. It's easy to say, I don't know. Try it sometime. There is no need to label things as supernatural in this case, only unknown. I realize there are a lot of things that are unknown and I have no need to give credit to the fantasy god of thunder made up in ancient Palestine for things without  an explanation.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Well better put

So far many things that people considered to be supernatural, were in fact merely natural occurances, Hurricans, Lightning/Thunder, Tsunamis, Earthquakes, Volcanos, diseases, various other supernatural occurances where and are infact just natural phenomenas, to add that this universe was created by an intelligent being that is beyond our comprehension, that wants you to follow it's rules, worship and do as it tells you through it's followers (after all no god has written a book it's all the followers only or the church etc, etc, etc). This doesn't add up at all since so far, to date, we can explain most of what we have found to be have a natural explanation, no supernatural deity or phenomena that suspends all forms of the laws of physics.

As for my assertion to the supernatural (your questions 2 and 3) is the following anything that interacts with this universe must follow the laws of this universe, it cannot merely break them at will (as in the case of god), with out a proper scientifc explanation, as there is an explanation of how it is able to do such a thing which then makes it natural for that being, which at that time stops being supernatural and becomes natural as it can interact with this universe, hence the term supernatural means nothing, just unexplained or beyond this universe.


fischer1121
Theist
Posts: 13
Joined: 2008-06-28
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:So far

latincanuck wrote:

So far many things that people considered to be supernatural, were in fact merely natural occurances, Hurricans, Lightning/Thunder, Tsunamis, Earthquakes, Volcanos, diseases, various other supernatural occurances where and are infact just natural phenomenas, to add that this universe was created by an intelligent being that is beyond our comprehension, that wants you to follow it's rules, worship and do as it tells you through it's followers (after all no god has written a book it's all the followers only or the church etc, etc, etc). This doesn't add up at all since so far, to date, we can explain most of what we have found to be have a natural explanation, no supernatural deity or phenomena that suspends all forms of the laws of physics.

So because there were a lot of frauds, the Truth is somehow less true? Why don't you evaluate it on its own merits.

latincanuck wrote:

As for my assertion to the supernatural (your questions 2 and 3) is the following anything that interacts with this universe must follow the laws of this universe, it cannot merely break them at will (as in the case of god), with out a proper scientifc explanation, as there is an explanation of how it is able to do such a thing which then makes it natural for that being, which at that time stops being supernatural and becomes natural as it can interact with this universe, hence the term supernatural means nothing, just unexplained or beyond this universe.

Please explain where these "laws of the universe" are. Please explain why gravity MUST be followed, why things must fall towards the earth. These "laws" are nothing. They are assumptions you've made from observing things that consistently happen a certain way. There's nothing saying that the next time someone drops an apple it necessarily needs to fall to the earth; It may very well float up into the sky. You've been mislead to believe that "anything that interacts with this universe must follow the laws of this universe".


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Worship your awareness, kiss

Worship your awareness, kiss the earth, do your science, call it god or whatever, don't make shit up calling it perfect truth, now go home and stare into the mirror a long while, then start again after a good rest. Oh, and tickle the neighbors ..... live for fun .... make that your religion ..... imagine a better world, dancing in the streets ..... celebrating everywhere !!!!!!!!!  Why not  ???????

They that would deny us   ..... take a hike     .... do your 40 days, confronting your devil ..... ( does everyone know that Buddha and Jesus story ????  I wish you did !!!!!!!

                    

         


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
IAMGODASYOUI never have any

IAMGODASYOU

I never have any idea what you're saying.. sometimes I understand a bit.  I hope, one day, I may see the greatest which I presume to be hidden in your wondrous words of whispy wisdom.