Käyttäjätunnus: Salasana:
Uuden käyttäjän rekisteröinti
Valvoja(t): Vikings 
 Politics

Forum 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."


Viestejä per sivu:
Lista keskustelualueista
Sinulla ei ole oikeutta kirjoittaa tälle alueelle. Tälle alueelle kirjoittamiseen vaadittu minimi jäsenyystaso on Brain-Sotilas.
Moodi: Kaikki voivat lähettää viestejä
Etsi viesteistä:  

<< <   200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209   > >>
18. Elokuu 2010, 02:27:46
Pedro Martínez 
Otsikko: Re: In what way? Well, the proof of existence of anything is generally easier than the proof of non-existence, don't you think so?
Artful Dodger: I can live with the fact that I don't know how come that time and space and everything in it exists and that I will never know it either. It doesn't bother me. I do agree that the Big Bang theory is the most reasonable of all the theories out there, but there still are too many grey areas.

The problem with our view of the time as finite or unfinite is this: we cannot imagine either of these possibilities. Can you imagine the creation of time? To me, it seems exactly as impossible as infinity of time.

I also fail to imagine how anything can create itself. :)

18. Elokuu 2010, 02:17:09
Papa Zoom 
Otsikko: Re: In what way? Well, the proof of existence of anything is generally easier than the proof of non-existence, don't you think so?
Pedro Martínez: every effect that we can study we can identify that it had a cause. We know of no uncaused effect. It's more reasonable to believed the Big Bang was caused than it "just happened." That "just happened" scenario takes a huge leap of faith.

Here's something else we're certain of: Time had a beginning. Time is not infinate and in fact, it's an impossibility.

Even the language you use gives it away. You say "creation" of time and space. In my view, an all knowing all powerful First Cause created. In your view, it created itself.

18. Elokuu 2010, 02:13:49
Pedro Martínez 
Otsikko: Re: I googled for a better way of saying it.
Tuesday: Do believe that. You will never figure out that the Bible, as well as any other “holy book“, is a hoax and you will find comfort in the belief that God exists and will take you to his kingdom after you die.

18. Elokuu 2010, 02:02:05
Pedro Martínez 
Otsikko: Re: In what way? Well, the proof of existence of anything is generally easier than the proof of non-existence, don't you think so?
Pedro Martínez: And, in addition to that, if I admitted for a moment that God indeed was the cause we're talking about, there would still remain a question to be answered: what was the cause of God's creation and existence?

18. Elokuu 2010, 01:55:42
Pedro Martínez 
Otsikko: Re: In what way? Well, the proof of existence of anything is generally easier than the proof of non-existence, don't you think so?
Muokannut Pedro Martínez (18. Elokuu 2010, 01:56:00)
Artful Dodger: I meant that we clearly agree that proving existence is easier than proving non-existence.

As for cosmological arguments, I'm not a big fan of them. First of all, even though I view the Big Bang theory as the most likely scenario, it still is only a theory. And there is a vast unexplained area in the theory, too. I have already found out that I will never fully understand what made the universe look the way it looks and how it actually looks. And nobody will ever understand that – it's simply beyond our limited thinking. Secondly and (maybe) more importantly, my problem with cosmological arguments is that I don't think there had to be a cause. I know that our experience tells us that every action brings reaction and that effect must have a cause, but how do we know this was also the case under as exteme conditions as at the time of the creation of time and space?

18. Elokuu 2010, 01:55:30
The Col 
Otsikko: Re:
Muokannut The Col (18. Elokuu 2010, 01:55:46)
Tuesday:was it a double whopper with cheese, no onions?

18. Elokuu 2010, 01:42:34
Papa Zoom 
Otsikko: Re: In what way? Well, the proof of existence of anything is generally easier than the proof of non-existence, don't you think so?
Pedro Martínez: I'm not sure we fully agree. I say that proof of the existence of something can take many forms. In the case of God, the kalam cosmological argument comes to mind. We know from science that this universe had a beginning in time. We can trace events back to the singularity. We can't go farther back than that. And we know that the universe is expanding. To expand, it must have necessarily come from a starting point. (scientists can back up the process mathematically and they come up to a single point - the singularity). That singularity contained in it all the matter and energy that is now contained in our universe. Before the "Big Bang" there was likely nothing. We can't know. But something set off the Big Bang. You don't get an effect without a cause. God is that Uncaused Cause.

18. Elokuu 2010, 01:35:33
Pedro Martínez 
Otsikko: Re: In what way? Well, the proof of existence of anything is generally easier than the proof of non-existence, don't you think so?
Artful Dodger: Well, sometimes it is possible, but I don't want to be a nitpicker. The important thing is we agree on the essence.

18. Elokuu 2010, 01:35:10
Papa Zoom 
Otsikko: Re:maybe a weak analogy, but my point is, the existance of an environment condusive to the creation of human beings is no more telling than a corpse that is friendly to the creation of maggots
Jim Dandy: I like it. But I do think both tell us something. For example, we now know maggots like dead people.

18. Elokuu 2010, 01:32:48
Papa Zoom 
Otsikko: Re: In what way? Well, the proof of existence of anything is generally easier than the proof of non-existence, don't you think so?
Pedro Martínez: Not so. It's impossible to prove the non-existence of anything.

18. Elokuu 2010, 01:30:08
Ferris Bueller 
Otsikko: Re: They can't all be the truth

Tuesday:  They can all have elements of truth, but none of them are perfect or have a monopoly on truth.


To quote a song I heard recently:  It's not your Yahweh who scares me.  It's not your Allah who scares me.  It's not your Jesus that scares me.  I'm afraid of what you do in the name of your God.


18. Elokuu 2010, 01:27:43
The Col 
Otsikko: Re:
Tuesday: maybe a weak analogy, but my point is, the existance of an environment condusive to the creation of human beings is no more telling than a corpse that is friendly to the creation of maggots

18. Elokuu 2010, 01:27:27
Pedro Martínez 
Otsikko: Re:
Tuesday:

18. Elokuu 2010, 01:24:54
Pedro Martínez 
Otsikko: Re:
Muokannut Pedro Martínez (18. Elokuu 2010, 01:25:26)
Tuesday: There can be (and there probably are) billions of suns and planets like that in the universe. This has nothing to do with God. And by the way, if you wait long enough, you will see the Sun grow bigger and burn “us” up.

18. Elokuu 2010, 01:23:37
The Col 
Otsikko: Re:
Muokannut The Col (18. Elokuu 2010, 01:38:47)
Tuesday: and if I let food expire it goes bad

18. Elokuu 2010, 01:22:19
The Col 
Otsikko: Re: They can't all be the truth
Tuesday: I believe we can live hell on earth, within the confines of our brain

18. Elokuu 2010, 01:20:12
Pedro Martínez 
Otsikko: Re: obviously, but the proof of existence should be much simpler and easier to do, right?
Artful Dodger: In what way? Well, the proof of existence of anything is generally easier than the proof of non-existence, don't you think so?

18. Elokuu 2010, 01:19:58
The Col 
Otsikko: Re: religions were on a collision course from the start
Artful Dodger: I would never state that religon is the root of all conflict

18. Elokuu 2010, 01:18:30
Papa Zoom 
Otsikko: Re: religions were on a collision course from the start
Jim Dandy: It's impossible to engage in the world of ideas without engaging in some sort of conflict from time to time. Take religion out of it and you would still have conflicts.

18. Elokuu 2010, 01:17:01
Papa Zoom 
Otsikko: Re: obviously, but the proof of existence should be much simpler and easier to do, right?
Pedro Martínez: in what way?

18. Elokuu 2010, 01:16:31
The Col 
Otsikko: Re: religions were on a collision course from the start
Artful Dodger: non evangelical religions generally avoid world conflict.Judaism of course is an exception due to the issues it has faced since the inception of Israel, but it's not due to any crusade to convert

18. Elokuu 2010, 01:12:56
Pedro Martínez 
Otsikko: Re: They can't all be the truth
Muokannut Pedro Martínez (18. Elokuu 2010, 01:15:55)
Artful Dodger: Oh I don't expect to find any proofs.
:)

edit: The above sentence is probably gramatically incorrect, but I hope my intentions are clear enough. lol

18. Elokuu 2010, 01:11:18
Papa Zoom 
Otsikko: Re: They can't all be the truth
Pedro Martínez: what kinds of proof would you expect to find?

18. Elokuu 2010, 01:10:13
The Col 
Otsikko: Re: They can't all be the truth
Tuesday: I paid Fencer

18. Elokuu 2010, 01:10:05
Papa Zoom 
Otsikko: Re: religions were on a collision course from the start
Jim Dandy: then likely religion is not the root of the problem but something else is.

18. Elokuu 2010, 01:08:28
Pedro Martínez 
Otsikko: Re: They can't all be the truth
Jim Dandy: Yup, we're on the same page there.

18. Elokuu 2010, 01:07:08
The Col 
Otsikko: Re: They can't all be the truth
Pedro Martínez: call it a placebo, but I do agree that for some it really doesn't matter if "God" exists.The comfort the belief provides is beneficial for them to get through the day

18. Elokuu 2010, 01:06:01
Pedro Martínez 
Otsikko: Re: They can't all be the truth
Tuesday: Why? There is no reason why…

18. Elokuu 2010, 01:04:41
Pedro Martínez 
Otsikko: Re: They can't all be the truth
Jim Dandy: I agree. It has enormous advantages, and as I said, I would love to believe. From the point of view of an individual, religious beliefs are very helpful.

18. Elokuu 2010, 01:00:34
The Col 
Otsikko: Re: They can't all be the truth
Muokannut The Col (18. Elokuu 2010, 01:05:03)
Pedro Martínez: Being delusional probably also helps one get through a hostage crisis, I suppose it has its advantages in getting through life


"ignorance is bliss"

18. Elokuu 2010, 00:56:27
Pedro Martínez 
Otsikko: Re: They can't all be the truth
Tuesday: You know, I would love to believe in God. In my opinion, believers have, in general, a better life than non-believers. But I just can't lie to myself when I know that people created their Gods for the very purpose to make their lives happier. I can't give you the proof of non-existence, obviously, but the proof of existence should be much simpler and easier to do, right? The fact that nobody has come up with such proof makes my assumptions more probable.

18. Elokuu 2010, 00:55:42
The Col 
Otsikko: Re: They can't all be the truth
Tuesday: please, that's so old school

18. Elokuu 2010, 00:52:57
The Col 
Otsikko: Re: They can't all be the truth
Tuesday: I used to think I was the messiah, who knows

18. Elokuu 2010, 00:49:15
Pedro Martínez 
Otsikko: Re: They can't all be the truth
Tuesday: And there is no God.

<< <   200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209   > >>
Päivämäärä ja aika
Ystävät palvelimella
Suosikki keskustelut
Yhteisöt
Päivän vinkki
Tekijänoikeudet - Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, kaikki oikeudet pidätetään.
Takaisin alkuun