Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

What if?


  • Please log in to reply
99 replies to this topic

#91 Galvatron

Galvatron

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 473 posts
  • LocationGreensboro, NC

Posted 11 June 2009 - 02:33 PM

Blindly copying and pasting because you think the first quote is cute. Still hilarious.


I actually took it out because I thought there were too many by one person. and I liked the one at the top better. :)

#92 LiQuiD

LiQuiD

    Plumb Crazy

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,255 posts

Posted 11 June 2009 - 02:35 PM

I actually took it out because I thought there were too many by one person. and I liked the one at the top better. :)


You so craaazy :smilielol5:

#93 Galvatron

Galvatron

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 473 posts
  • LocationGreensboro, NC

Posted 11 June 2009 - 02:41 PM

You so craaazy :smilielol5:


I'm not ashamed of the quote and it doesn't contradict anything I've said. I've maintained that I'm not perfect and sometimes the songs I sing in church are not how I'm feeling. I'm not some wide-eyed, well-dressed stereotype of a Christian who always has it together. Each line we sing can be powerful, transforming, and intentional, or it can just float around as a warm fuzzy for an evening and sometimes it does...

#94 ItsNotGonnaBeAlright

ItsNotGonnaBeAlright

    Insane Racist Moron

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,107 posts

Posted 11 June 2009 - 08:42 PM

Hmm...prove a God, especially one that has the attributes provided by Christianity....

Well, let's start easy. There are three plausible origins for the universe. One, the idea that the universe was created by something. Two, that the universe somehow came into being through its own accord from nothing. Three, the universe is endlessly self-perpetuating and therefore has no beginning. All are equally valid and all equally unprovable. However, logic dictates that only one has the possiblity of proof however vague or insignificant it may be.

The idea of nothing demands that there be no definition and no proof. Even providing the term "nothing" destroys the concept, which in itself is a self destructive paradox. Therefore, within the bounds of physical science, "nothing" cannot be proven.

The idea of infinance is a little bit more complicated, but not by much. The concept of "proof" demands a timeframe. Infinance operates quite outside that boundry. It would be impossible to prove infinance because it is impossible to decide when enough has been proven because there would always be further to go in any given direction.

Which leaves us with creation by a something.

I'll stop it there. I think I've left plenty of holes in my talking points here, so that should be a dandy conversation continuance.

#95 dimbee

dimbee

    Rabble Rouser

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,884 posts

Posted 11 June 2009 - 10:02 PM

Hmm...prove a God, especially one that has the attributes provided by Christianity....

Well, let's start easy. There are three plausible origins for the universe. One, the idea that the universe was created by something. Two, that the universe somehow came into being through its own accord from nothing. Three, the universe is endlessly self-perpetuating and therefore has no beginning. All are equally valid and all equally unprovable. However, logic dictates that only one has the possiblity of proof however vague or insignificant it may be.

The idea of nothing demands that there be no definition and no proof. Even providing the term "nothing" destroys the concept, which in itself is a self destructive paradox. Therefore, within the bounds of physical science, "nothing" cannot be proven.

The idea of infinance is a little bit more complicated, but not by much. The concept of "proof" demands a timeframe. Infinance operates quite outside that boundry. It would be impossible to prove infinance because it is impossible to decide when enough has been proven because there would always be further to go in any given direction.

Which leaves us with creation by a something.

I'll stop it there. I think I've left plenty of holes in my talking points here, so that should be a dandy conversation continuance.


This is a great post and it poses great questions. First and foremost, "creation" of the universe is something that is so far beyond human intellect to comprehend that all we can do is guess. Thus, there can't really be a right or wrong answer. To conjecture on the creation of the universe leads one to wonder what "was" before the "creation" of such. (I'll stop with the quotation marks now. ;) ) Wondering if there was something before there was something is a paradox. How could there be something before there was something? It's unable to be comprehended. And if there was nothing before there was something, how was there something in that nothing that created something? What if everything is but a circular something, never starting, never ending? In solely my own opinion, I like to think of everything being similar to a soap bubble- you blow on the bubble, and another bubble can be formed, attached to the original bubble, but still a bubble of it's own. Those two bubble are connected but still separated in their own nature. Bubbles can create bubbles and the bubbles stay attached, creating means of passing from one bubble to another. Bubbles creating bubbles creating bubbles. The question is "what created the bubble" and "what blew on the bubble?" Is it science? Is it godly? Is it something so far beyond me that I can't even think of it?

I think because this paradox is SO far beyond the ability for a human mind to comprehend and extrapolate, it is the easiest conclusion to deduce that there is some greater power that caused all of this to happen... which brings us back to what was there before something was there.

Being an agnostic, I have no idea. I don't have the answers, and no one does. I simply don't believe the Bible's explanation of creation because it doesn't answer my questions. In no way am I saying it's right or wrong, my mind just won't believe it.

Therein lies the differentiation between myself and a believer: I don't have faith in the story, and I don't understand it enough to believe in the story.

[/deepness]

Edited by dimbee, 11 June 2009 - 10:07 PM.


#96 xPUREBYBLOODx

xPUREBYBLOODx

    StraightXXXLife

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 367 posts

Posted 11 June 2009 - 10:07 PM

Repent, he(Jesus Christ) is coming,per God.

#97 88 Bronco

88 Bronco

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,901 posts

Posted 11 June 2009 - 10:18 PM

Repent, he(Jesus Christ) is coming,per God.


There you are, I thought you were out shooting doctors.

#98 LiQuiD

LiQuiD

    Plumb Crazy

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,255 posts

Posted 12 June 2009 - 08:20 AM

Repent, he(Jesus Christ) is coming,per God.


:smilielol5: Doooooooom, GLOOOOOOOM!

Oh, the check's in the mail by the way.

Edited by LiQuiD, 12 June 2009 - 08:23 AM.


#99 LiQuiD

LiQuiD

    Plumb Crazy

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,255 posts

Posted 12 June 2009 - 08:22 AM

What I don't understand about the whole creation story is if there's a sole identity that engineered everything, wouldn't something have had to create said identity? How could god come from "nothing"?

#100 ItsNotGonnaBeAlright

ItsNotGonnaBeAlright

    Insane Racist Moron

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,107 posts

Posted 12 June 2009 - 02:29 PM

This is a great post and it poses great questions. First and foremost, "creation" of the universe is something that is so far beyond human intellect to comprehend that all we can do is guess. Thus, there can't really be a right or wrong answer. To conjecture on the creation of the universe leads one to wonder what "was" before the "creation" of such. (I'll stop with the quotation marks now. ;) ) Wondering if there was something before there was something is a paradox. How could there be something before there was something? It's unable to be comprehended. And if there was nothing before there was something, how was there something in that nothing that created something? What if everything is but a circular something, never starting, never ending? In solely my own opinion, I like to think of everything being similar to a soap bubble- you blow on the bubble, and another bubble can be formed, attached to the original bubble, but still a bubble of it's own. Those two bubble are connected but still separated in their own nature. Bubbles can create bubbles and the bubbles stay attached, creating means of passing from one bubble to another. Bubbles creating bubbles creating bubbles. The question is "what created the bubble" and "what blew on the bubble?" Is it science? Is it godly? Is it something so far beyond me that I can't even think of it?

I think because this paradox is SO far beyond the ability for a human mind to comprehend and extrapolate, it is the easiest conclusion to deduce that there is some greater power that caused all of this to happen... which brings us back to what was there before something was there.

Being an agnostic, I have no idea. I don't have the answers, and no one does. I simply don't believe the Bible's explanation of creation because it doesn't answer my questions. In no way am I saying it's right or wrong, my mind just won't believe it.

Therein lies the differentiation between myself and a believer: I don't have faith in the story, and I don't understand it enough to believe in the story.

[/deepness]


Which is a problem that a lot of people have with religion, both on the outside and on the interior. People want things to fit very nicely inside of definitions. However, when dealing in terms of infinance no one definition can ever adequately be applied. We simply are not smart enough to understand, and that scares a lot of people, be it into adhereing only to what can be understood through scientific means or to emotional and philisophical systems because they understand their own thoughts and are comforted by them.

Which is to say nothing about perception, but that's an entirely different kind of conversation altogether.

And questions, oh Good Lordy, I love questions. Curiosity is one of the most valuable traits of sentient life and should never be wasted or ignored. Question everything. Hell, I have begged mathematicians for years to prove to me that two plus two will always, in every instance universally, equal four. Most of them have looked at me like I was insane for even suggesting that it wouldn't, but a few have asked for elaborations and those usually end with them being exceptionally confused.

Taking things as a given is an absolutely horrible way to live, and fundamentally destroys one of what I believe to be the most essential aspects of physical existence - free will. Of course, the fact that the choice was made to accept those givens means that your still fitting in with free will, so it all works out.

As for that bubble theory of yours, I absolutely love the idea. A lot of people like to compare the idea of creation with a painting. This essentially expands that out into a question of "What could be more perfect than a painting that is never the same each time it is viewed?" Where did these "bubbles" come from? Well, that is the fantastic question and after many thousands of years of debate we still aren't any closer to the answer. All again, free will in action.

What I don't understand about the whole creation story is if there's a sole identity that engineered everything, wouldn't something have had to create said identity? How could god come from "nothing"?


The age old riddle of the chicken and the egg. The major problem here is that we're not talking about chickens or eggs or anything else within the physical spectrum. To ask "What created God?" is to assume that the idea and function of creation extends outside the realm of the physical, which again is the fault of perception and I'd rather not write that essay right now.

But for an answer to the question, because it's perfectly possible that God has a creator, let's think of this. If the function and heirarchy of creation is unchanged between the physical and the non-physical, then it should also be accepted that the understanding involved in each layer of creation remain the same. No creation can ever give perfect definition to its creator. Again, this fits in very nicely with the idea of free will which would also need to remain a constant (albeit a very inconsistant one). Am I making sense here?

As an example, your children will never fully do justice in explaining who you were at your funeral, and they will have little to no understanding of who your great great great great grandparents were in their lives.

Wow, that got long. I'll stop here. And I still haven't even gotten into why I'm a Christian yet....


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.