 |
|
 PoliticsForum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics. All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc.. As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself. Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!! *"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned." You are not allowed to post messages to this board. Minimum level of membership required for posting on this board is Brain Pawn. Mode: Everyone can post
27. August 2012, 07:26:30 This may or may not have anything to do with politics (I happen to think it does) but have you heard of this theory about where the universe came from? It basically says first there was nothing, then the nothing spontaneously turned into two separate but equal realities. The two realities are kept separate, because if they came together they would cancel each other out and then we'd be back to nothing again. One has a positive value and other negative, and are either kept apart by some means that wasn't explained, or for the time being are simply separated with no force holding them apart. I am not making this up. I listened to Stephen Hawking talk about it. It sounds like how a credit card company operates. They are able to give you money (the positive value) because they also create a negative value to ballance it with. In other words, you get free money in exchange for you owing them that money (plus interest and other charges). The reason I see politics written all over this theory is because the reasoning sounds familiar. First, there's something from nothing. And the word spontaneous is misleading, making you think it just happened for no reason. Or without a cause. The reason it's misleading is because "spontaneous" doesn't mean there was no force acting on it, 'spontaneous' means the force acting on it came from within instead of outside the system. In other words, the reasoning is flawed because in a state of nothingness there would be no force present (internal or external) to act at all. There is nothing there to cause nothing to become something. The reason I think this is significant is because if a brilliant mind like Hawking's can overlook a glaring error such as this, what does that say about the average Joe who is being treated daily with political messages that make no sense? It's not just America that has been dumbed down. Gore and Obama have both won Nobel prizes for basically doing nothing but spout off about things they know nothing about. 27. August 2012, 18:35:57 Subject: Re: mckinley: "NKJV is easier to read." I have that version. I'll look at the chapters you suggested. Hopefully I'll know what your point is after reading, but I may have to come back to ask anyway. 28. August 2012, 18:21:41 Subject: Re: mckinley: "I thought I was helping you discredit Stephen Hawking in a poetic fashion." My point was not to discret Hawking. I'm aware of Hawkings desire to discredit a belief in God, but I think he's fallen into the trap of trying to use science to promote his own personal beliefs. It's a mistake some Christians make if they don't take the science side seriously enough. But then atheists will also make the mistake of thinking just because they are atheists, then science will automatically support anything they believe. They don't like Intelligent Design, even though the principles of intelligent design are used in forensics and archeology and other established areas of science. There was no point in building SETI for looking for signs of intelligently designed signals if the principles outlined in the intelligent design theory are invalid. It's a sore point for atheists, so what they'll do is call the theory "religion" and hope no one looks too closely at the deception. Anyway, I'm glad you came back to explain why you gave me those particular chapters out of that particular book. I thought maybe it had something to do with me being proud or something like that. I'm not against a little self exaltation and self promotion, as long as it doesn't cut too deeply into my profound sense of saintly humility... I'm also a bit of a nut, but you may have already figured that out. 28. August 2012, 21:59:55 Subject: Re:  Iamon lyme: I'm not a "religious" person at all, nor an expert at Religion. (I wouldn't call my self an Atheist either though) You made me think about something I don't remember any of my religious relatives ever talking about. Is it "anti Christian" to believe there may be life else where in the universe? Though, I imagine like everything else, even with THAT there's probably a ton of different views, that can't really be generalized. 29. August 2012, 01:42:24 Subject: Re: rod03801: "Is it "anti Christian" to believe there may be life else where in the universe?" I don't think so, but that's my own personal opinion. I don't know enough about what the Bible says to be able to answer that definitively and without any doubt. But if God wanted there to be other life forms in other parts of the universe, and not tell us about it, I don't see why that couldn't happen. One thing that occurred to me when I watched the Narnia movies is that if God can do anything, and He wanted to create a place like Narnia, then what could stop Him from actually doing that? I don't assume that everything there is to know can be found in the Bible. I am assuming that Paul was correct when he said we will know as we have been known, and we are looking through a glass darkly... what that means to me is I'm only seeing a very small fraction of what I'll know later. But if someone says it's arrogant for me to not believe there is life on other planets, that's where I draw the line on the speculation... because it's just as arrogant to assume there is life on other planets. Either way it's only a guess, because we don't know. 29. August 2012, 02:01:45 Subject: Re: Iamon lyme: Hmm. I like that answer. The Magician's Nephew was my favorite Narnia book. 29. August 2012, 16:55:48 Subject: Re: Of course some ppl think it's a fairy tale. mckinley: Fairy tales are usually stories with lessons/messages wrapped into the telling. There is evidence that there was a major flood at some date previous to the story being written. N' at that time people thinking a God controlled much of the worlds weather.. they wanted reassurance the Gods were not wiping out humanity. .. plus it helped explain Rainbows!!  29. August 2012, 18:07:19 Subject: Re: mckinley: "I'm thinking Noah's Ark will be found if it petrified." It's already been found. Aerial photographs were taken as well as close up pictures. A few chunks of it were taken and analysed. It was very heavy and hard, so they think the wood had been waterproofed in some way. For years bible scholars thought gopher wood was supposed to be a type or species of tree, but what it means is the wood has been treated with some kind of hot oil or heated wood sap. The ark itself has split in half, and some of the inside chambers could be seen. The evidence however will be disputed, when not ignored, so don't expect to see any atheists to suddenly convert based on the evidence of there being an ark... instead expect to hear it's not there, it didn't happen, etc etc. 29. August 2012, 17:35:22 Subject: Re: mckinley: "Some of the ammo athiests use is why do bad things happen if there is a God." Atheists manufacture their own ammo. First they tell us it's a fairy tale, then they over simplify it by treating it as a fairy tale. See how that works? They don't want us to tell them why bad things happen to good people. They want to tell us that bad things happen to good people and then ask why, as though simply asking the question is enough to answer the question. It doesn't matter how many times you answer their question. They will always ignore your answer, then argue with answers you don't give, and then start all over again by asking the same questions. I watched this cycle go on for a few years at another site, and I'll bet it's happened here as well. They also manufacture their own inconsistencies when looking for contradictions. Apparently the only rule for them is that there are no rules, and they are free to say or do anything... even if it make no sense to anyone else. 27. August 2012, 18:46:00 Subject: Re: mckinley: "Book of Job chapters 38-42." Not sure what your point is, but if it's what I think it might be then I could say the same about anyone else here. What made you think of those chapters? |
Date and time
Friends online
Favourite boards
Fellowships
Tip of the day
|
|
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, all rights reserved. Back to the top |