God Talk

[Slasher]

You're interpreting what he said completely wrong. Reread it.

I am saying that if earth was a particle of a larger planet that disintegrated & shot bits all over the void. Do you think it not possible that another bit (Planet) had a swamp that produced life & they matured 100,000 years before us, & they decided to try & give us some guidance, suggesting that there is more to life than possessions & power.

"I am saying that if earth was a particle of a larger planet & shot bits all over the void"
-> The earth was ultimately produced by the big bang. Whether was a bit of another much larger planet, or whether it was the result of different things colliding, it doesn't matter.

"Do you think it not possible that another bit (Planet) had a swamp that produced life"
-> Another planet having similar conditions as earth. Completely plausible.

"& they matured 100,000 years before us"
-> This planet bore life 100,000 years before planet earth had life

"& they decided to try & give us some guidance, suggesting that there is more to life than possessions & power"
-> These beings from another planet discovered us and tried to communicate that there is much more to life than as we knew it


Everything said is completely circumstantial.

whose to say that life on other planets has evolved past bacterial form? we may be the first.

Who's to say it hasn't either? under the circumstances of the big bang, it's certainly a possibility that another planet could have formed just like ours did and they as well "evolved".

 

[Darth Budd]

You're interpreting what he said completely wrong. Reread it.

ok

I am saying that if earth was a particle of a larger planet that disintegrated & shot bits all over the void.

it's not

Do you think it not possible that another bit (Planet) had a swamp that produced life & they matured 100,000 years before us,

then they would be amphibians. because amphibians are the most prevalent life in swampy areas, other than bacteria, of course, which they still might be

they decided to try & give us some guidance, suggesting that there is more to life than possessions & power.

odds are they wouldn't be able to speak in a way that we could understand, and vice versa. that is of course if they spoke at all, they may communicate using visual signals. this also assumes that they are intelligent enough for interstellar travel.

 

[Terra]

Originally Posted by Terra
Do you think it not possible that another bit (Planet) had a swamp that produced life & they matured 100,000 years before us,

Posted by Darth Budd
then they would be amphibians. because amphibians are the most prevalent life in swampy areas, other than bacteria, of course, which they still might be

I haven't been following evolution updates, but I was referring to my earliest study of the theory where it was hypothesized that all life began from a submerged planet (earth). evaporation exposed land & the process of aquatic to amphibian to flora & fauna & human) evolved.

If you can put aside the God case for a moment, there was an interesting point made during the famous Scopes Monkey trial in Tennessee in 1925.
Defence lawyer Darrow was questioning Theologian Bryan after he had nominated (According to the bible) the exact age of the earth. (as 5000 years old or something).
Darrow; "The bible says that in the first day, God created earth"
Bryan; "That's correct"
Darrow; "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep"
Bryan; "Yes"
Darrow;"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light".
Bryan; "Correct!"
Darrow then went on. He asked how we calculated time & Bryan related the process of the suns orbiting planets.
Darrow; "So before the light, how was time calculated? It could have been a similar 24 hours for your process, or it could have been 24 years, or 24 Million years. The ageless God never mentioned time to his scribes".

It was a high point of the trial & it opened up a can of worms for the Theologians & the Evolutionists.

Just thought I'd mention it.

 

[FreePlay]

Perhaps if we reflect that when the disintegration that produced this planet, that produced a swamp & we crawled out of it, another piece of shrapnel produced a similar scenario that realized out state a 100,000 years earlier, turned up here & tried to teach us not to make their mistakes.

I have no idea what you're talking about nor any idea how it's related...

I am saying that if earth was a particle of a larger planet that disintegrated & shot bits all over the void. Do you think it not possible that another bit (Planet) had a swamp that produced life & they matured 100,000 years before us, & they decided to try & give us some guidance, suggesting that there is more to life than possessions & power.

...

What?

So you believe Jesus was an alien?

The earth was ultimately produced by the big bang. Whether was a bit of another much larger planet, or whether it was the result of different things colliding, it doesn't matter.

Yes, it does. We know that it wasn't part of a larger planet.

Another planet having similar conditions as earth. Completely plausible.

Sure.

This planet bore life 100,000 years before planet earth had life

...

These beings from another planet discovered us and tried to communicate that there is much more to life than as we knew it

And why the hell would they do that?

I haven't been following evolution updates, but I was referring to my earliest study of the theory where it was hypothesized that all life began from a submerged planet (earth). evaporation exposed land & the process of aquatic to amphibian to flora & fauna & human) evolved.

This was never the theory.

It was a high point of the trial & it opened up a can of worms for the Theologians & the Evolutionists.

1. There is no such thing as an "evolutionist". Evolution is not something you believe in - it just happens. There are, however, evolution deniers, who willfully ignore reality.
2. It only opens up a can of worms if you take the Bible literally. If you wholly disregard the Bible, this exchange doesn't change anything at all.

 

[Seth]

This was posted in the old god thread figer I post it here

An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his
class on the problem science has with God, The
Almighty.
He asks one of his new students to stand and.....

Prof: So you believe in God?

Student: Absolutely, sir.

Prof: Is God good?

Student: Sure.

Prof: Is God all-powerful?

Student : Yes.

Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed
to God to heal him.
Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill.
But God didn't. How is this God good then? Hmm?

(Student is silent.)

Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again,
young fella. Is
God good?

Student :Yes.

Prof: Is Satan good?

Student : No.

Prof: Where does Satan come from?

Student : From...God...

Prof: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this
world?

Student : Yes.

Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make
everything.
Correct?

Student : Yes.

Prof: So who created evil?

(Student does not answer.)

Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness?

All these terrible things exist in the world, don't
they?

Student :Yes, sir.

Prof: So, who created them?

(Student has no answer.)

Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to
identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son...Have you
ever
seen God?

Student : No, sir.

Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?

Student : No , sir.

Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God,
smelled your God?
Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for
that matter?

Student : No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.

Prof: Yet you still believe in Him?

Student : Yes.

Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable
protocol, science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to
that,
son?

Student : Nothing. I only have my faith.

Prof: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.

Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat?

Prof: Yes.

Student : And is there such a thing as cold?

Prof: Yes.

Student : No sir. There isn't.

(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn
of events.)

Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more
heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But
we
don't have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero
which
is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such
thing
as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat.
We
cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat,
sir, just the absence of it.

(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)

Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there
such a thing as darkness?

Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?

Student : You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the
absence of something. You can have low light, normal light,bright
light,flashing light.... But if you have no light constantly, you have
nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness
isn't. If
it were, you would be able to make darkness darker,wouldn't you?

Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?

Student : Sir, my point is your philosophical premise
is flawed.

Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?

Student : Sir, you are working on the premise of
duality.
You argue there is life and then there is death, a
good God and a bad God.
You are viewing the concept of God as something
finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a
thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much
less
fully
understood either one. To view death as the opposite
of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a
substantive thing.
Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of
it.
Now tell me, Professor. Do you teach your students
that they evolved from a monkey?

Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary
process, yes, of course, I do.

Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your
own eyes, sir?

(The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning
to realize where the argument is going.)

Student : Since no one has ever observed the process
of evolution at
work and cannot even prove that this process is an
on-going
endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir?

Are you not a scientist but a preacher?

(The class is in uproar.)

Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever
seen the Professor's brain?

The class breaks out into laughter.)

Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the
Professor'sbrain, felt it, touched or smelled it?.....No one appears
to
have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical,
stable,
demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain,sir. With
all
due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures,sir?

(The room is silent. The professor stares at the
student, his face unfathomable.)

Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.

Student : That is it, sir.. The link between man & god
is FAITH. That is all that keeps things moving & alive.

That young man was ALBERT EINSTEIN.......

 

[Chathurga]

That story has been completely busted as fake.
Snopes'ing a story is always a good idea, http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

 

[ChurchedAtheist]

the matter that previously existed condensed into a ball, then it exploded. before you ask where that matter came from, we haven't discovered it yet. thats what science is all about, finding answers, if we don't have one, we just say so then go looking for it

ok. this I can accept. an inquisitive "trying to find out" is the point of science. science should never accept "it just is"

 

[Seth]

I know I just kinda wanted to know what you guys thought of it....

So what you guys thought of the whole 6-6-6 thing...

 

[Darth Budd]

the number of the beast? I <3 Iron Maiden.

also, the numbers probably originated in ancient jewish numerology, which has been shown on numerous occasions to be a reference to the roman emperor nero.

 

[Terra]

Some of the opinions that I have read here are quite extraordinary, by means of assumption.
I stated that an early hypothosis (Scientific) was that all life evolved from a submersed planet & the process of non aquatic creatures progressed as evaporation occurred when the earth began it's orbit of the Sun.

Freeplay said "This was never the theory".

It may never have been a theory that you read or heard about, but you can take my word for it, that theory was debated for most of the time of the 60's until I lost interest in it. It may have been superceded later, but your presumption is inaccurate.

In response to my proposal that earth was part of a larger planet, It was said that "we know that's not true"

You might be interested in an interveiw we had down here recently where scientists were discussing theories & practices.

In part, one said, & the rest nodded their heads; "When we have a process that our evidence points to as being the ultimate ingredient to a desired result, we go with it & it is debated & measured & if possible, repeatedly tested. Science is science, it is not an exacting process until we can't prove it could possibly be wrong.
It only takes one assumption, even if it's the result of a proven equation, while it's an assumption, the whole process is flawed. We work with what we have got, & what we've got is the result of evolving science.


Now,, to say "We know what happened in the beginning, is about as implausible a statement that I have ever read or heard.

There are planets out there that make the sun look like a pin head, millions of them, & you say we know what happened.

It's no wonder you consider God is a fantasy if you believe such theory. & that is all it is.

 

[FreePlay]

Thanks for the assumption, but no. I consider God a fantasy because there is zero evidence to support his existence apart from the hopes and dreams of believers. If you could provide me with some, I'd be obliged to examine it.

As for your early hypothesis, I'd love to know the name of someone who has written about it, because I've never heard any such thing.

As for the formation of the earth, we know it doesn't come from another planet because of the structure of the planet. We've seen celestial bodies that did form from larger worlds, and they're quite different. Ours exhibits all the signs of having formed from the accretion of a planetary cloud.

If you're seriously going to argue that science can't claim to actually know anything, then we don't really have anything to discuss, because you could always go on saying "But you don't actually know that."

 

[FrozenIpaq]

Thanks for the assumption. But no. I consider God a fantasy because there is zero evidence to support his existence apart from the hopes and dreams of believers.

As for your early hypothesis, I'd love to know the name of someone who has written about it, because I've never heard any such thing.

As for the formation of the earth, we know it doesn't come from another planet because of the structure of the planet. We've seen celestial bodies that did form from larger worlds, and they're quite different. Ours exhibits all the signs of having formed from the accretion of a planetary cloud.

Does their exist evidence to deny his existence though? It's all philosophical

 

[FreePlay]

God's existence is a matter of fact - either he exists or he doesn't.

As with any question of something's existence, the base assumption should be nonexistence. Proof of existence is required before that proof can be countered. The same goes for any mythical being - dragons, unicorns, the easter bunny, Santa Claus, etc. There's no need to "deny" an existence that hasn't been demonstrated.

And no, that's not just philosophical blathering - that's how science works

 

[Darth Budd]

how else do presents get under the tree? it most certainly isn't osmosis.

 

[Darth Budd]

But tons of gay guys have kids...

but do they vote for john mccain?

anyways. god hates gays, but god created everything, meaning god created gays. the bible says god loves all his creations (it also says god is a he but why would a non-physical being need a gender?) but god hates gays....

please explain this to me

 

[ChurchedAtheist]

the argument is that they were created straight, but were "perverted" to gayness. he still loves them, but hates their "sin" of gay sex

 

[Seth]

also says god is a he but why would a non-physical being need a gender?
please explain this to me

http://www.gotquestions.org/God-male-female.html

In examining Scripture, two facts become clear: First, that God is a Spirit, and does not possess human characteristics or limitations; second, that all the evidence contained in Scripture agrees that God revealed Himself to mankind in a male form. First of all, God’s true nature needs to be understood. God is a person, obviously, because God exhibits all the characteristics of personhood: God has a mind, a will, an intellect, and emotions. God communicates, has relationships, and God’s personal actions are evidenced throughout Scripture.

As John 4:24 states, “God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.” Since God is a spiritual being, God does not possess physical human characteristics.

but do they vote for john mccain?

anyways. god hates gays, but god created everything, meaning god created gays. the bible says god loves all his creations (it

http://www.gotquestions.org/homosexuality-Bible.html

The Bible consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Romans 1:26-27 teaches specifically that homosexuality is a result of denying and disobeying God. When a person continues in sin and disbelief, the Bible tells us that God “gives them over” to even more wicked and depraved sin in order to show them the futility and hopelessness of life apart from God. 1 Corinthians 6:9 proclaims that homosexual “offenders” will not inherit the kingdom of God.

 

[Darth Budd]

http://www.gotquestions.org/God-male-female.html

quotes from there

What this means is that both man and woman are created in the image of God, in that they are greater than all the other creations as they, like God, have a mind, will, intellect, emotions, and moral capacity.

being made in the image of God has nothing to do with physical characteristics.

god could be a flying spaghetti monster

 

[eighty4]

but do they vote for john mccain?

anyways. god hates gays, but god created everything, meaning god created gays. the bible says god loves all his creations (it also says god is a he but why would a non-physical being need a gender?) but god hates gays....

please explain this to me

God created everything as in, he created the world, and humans, and then it eventually became what it is today.

God having a gender is either an expression to show his strength and power back when the Bible was created and written first. Men, as we all know, were (and sometimes still are) dominant in most areas of life and were able to do as they please. Whilst the females were stuck washes dishes, watching the kids, and staying in the house wearing dresses all day. I'm no Pastor so I can't dwell into the aspect of God actually having a gender.

Also, in Catholic faith, Jesus = God. So - you can pretty much sum it up from there.

 

[Darth Budd]

Also, in Catholic faith, Jesus = God. So - you can pretty much sum it up from there.

i went to a catholic high school taking mandatory religion classes every day while attending mandatory mass and prayer services. i have studied each sacrament, the old and new testaments, and modern catholicism and moral obligations in depth.

jesus does not equal god to them. he is part of the holy trinity made of god the father (creator), god the son (redeemer), and god the spirit (sanctifier). i was taught (by an actual priest) that god creates each person individually, from scratch. I once asked him what he meant by that when we have direct physical evidence of the sperm and eggs combining to create whole chromosomes then that single cell multiplying and dividing etc. and he just insisted that each person was made from scratch by god and that sex was just a way of letting god know to get going.

there is a few problems i have with that answer.
1. god created each person from scratch, and since there is no evidence that being raised a certain way makes you gay, then it is most likely biological. meaning that god created his own abomination.

2. why have sex to let god know that you are ready for a baby? why not just pray? also, if you use a condom you are still having sex, so wouldn't god know anyway?

3. god could make babies instantly so why does it take nine months?

in case you are wondering i did actually ask him those and instead of even trying to answer me he gave me a four hour Saturday detention and the number of a religious counselor so i could discuss my "problems" with him. whats ironic is that i had biology next period and since cal. state law requires we be taught a certain curriculum i spent the next hour learning about anthropology, which to this day remains an area of great interest to me, and one of the choices that i am considering majoring in