A Small Question About God
Rich19 28 Jul 2010
Dr. Genrail, on 11 Jun 2010, 0:07, said:
Ill make it my own make-believe god. Who IS omnipotent.
Would the question still be possible?
I have a task for your God - to produce a valid $1 bill. Even if a perfect, atom-for-atom copy is made, the finished item is not a valid $1 bill because it was not produced by the US mint.
Golan 29 Jul 2010
The capitalized God has some traits defined that require omnipotence though.
Quote
Rich19, on 28 Jul 2010, 13:15, said:
Edited by Golan, 29 July 2010 - 07:46.
BeefJeRKy 03 Aug 2010
NergiZed, on 28 Jul 2010, 16:06, said:
I'm using the term 'arrow of time' in a non-scientific sense meaning the direction of time.
Why do so many of us perceive time as a vector? It is in fact a non-decreasing (from our frame of reference) scalar quantity. You can't go back in time without being in another frame of reference.
Chyros 03 Aug 2010
scope, on 3 Aug 2010, 14:16, said:
NergiZed, on 28 Jul 2010, 16:06, said:
I'm using the term 'arrow of time' in a non-scientific sense meaning the direction of time.
Why do so many of us perceive time as a vector? It is in fact a non-decreasing (from our frame of reference) scalar quantity. You can't go back in time without being in another frame of reference.
Chyros 04 Aug 2010
RaiDK 05 Aug 2010
Rich19, on 28 Jul 2010, 23:15, said:
Dr. Genrail, on 11 Jun 2010, 0:07, said:
Ill make it my own make-believe god. Who IS omnipotent.
Would the question still be possible?
I have a task for your God - to produce a valid $1 bill. Even if a perfect, atom-for-atom copy is made, the finished item is not a valid $1 bill because it was not produced by the US mint.
Isn't that like saying "Make an object which someone else made"? It's logically impossible in itself.
Chyros 05 Aug 2010
RaiDK, on 5 Aug 2010, 14:05, said:
Rich19, on 28 Jul 2010, 23:15, said:
Dr. Genrail, on 11 Jun 2010, 0:07, said:
Ill make it my own make-believe god. Who IS omnipotent.
Would the question still be possible?
I have a task for your God - to produce a valid $1 bill. Even if a perfect, atom-for-atom copy is made, the finished item is not a valid $1 bill because it was not produced by the US mint.
Isn't that like saying "Make an object which someone else made"? It's logically impossible in itself.
TehKiller 05 Aug 2010
Will you people figure it out that with asking retarded questions you wont make a bloody point. The only thing you will managed to succeed is asking a retarded question.
Deformat 10 Aug 2010
Chyros, on 5 Aug 2010, 21:20, said:
RaiDK, on 5 Aug 2010, 14:05, said:
Rich19, on 28 Jul 2010, 23:15, said:
Dr. Genrail, on 11 Jun 2010, 0:07, said:
Ill make it my own make-believe god. Who IS omnipotent.
Would the question still be possible?
I have a task for your God - to produce a valid $1 bill. Even if a perfect, atom-for-atom copy is made, the finished item is not a valid $1 bill because it was not produced by the US mint.
Isn't that like saying "Make an object which someone else made"? It's logically impossible in itself.
"In God We Trust"
deltaepsilon 10 Aug 2010
Rich19, on 28 Jul 2010, 23:15, said:
Dr. Genrail, on 11 Jun 2010, 0:07, said:
Ill make it my own make-believe god. Who IS omnipotent.
Would the question still be possible?
I have a task for your God - to produce a valid $1 bill. Even if a perfect, atom-for-atom copy is made, the finished item is not a valid $1 bill because it was not produced by the US mint.
Then God gets arrested for counterfeiting.
TheDR 10 Aug 2010
Hobbesy 13 Aug 2010
TehKiller, on 5 Aug 2010, 17:11, said:
Will you people figure it out that with asking retarded questions you wont make a bloody point. The only thing you will managed to succeed is asking a retarded question.
I'd have to agree with this. Arguing the validity of something that is horribly broken such as religion is pretty much purposeless. It's going to be contradictory to itself any way you spin it.
Edited by Hobbesy, 13 August 2010 - 01:35.
Golan 13 Aug 2010
And that every single religion in existence is horribly broken...
Edited by Golan, 13 August 2010 - 07:37.
TehKiller 13 Aug 2010
Hobbesy, on 13 Aug 2010, 1:35, said:
TehKiller, on 5 Aug 2010, 17:11, said:
Will you people figure it out that with asking retarded questions you wont make a bloody point. The only thing you will managed to succeed is asking a retarded question.
I'd have to agree with this. Arguing the validity of something that is horribly broken such as religion is pretty much purposeless. It's going to be contradictory to itself any way you spin it.
I'd say your "point" is even worse than the "point" the question is supposed to make. Making childish questions to nitpick a religion wont make the discussion far, neither will the question prove the (in)validity of anything.
Hobbesy 13 Aug 2010
Golan 13 Aug 2010
Alias 13 Aug 2010
Are you going to make a point or just write garbage?
Chyros 13 Aug 2010
Alias, on 13 Aug 2010, 23:10, said:
To be honest, the discussion is meaningless though, since by definition, religion can't be proven. If God were tangibly true, it would no longer be a faith, after all.
Hobbesy 13 Aug 2010
Alias, on 13 Aug 2010, 16:10, said:
Are you going to make a point or just write garbage?
With the logic I was using every country would be broken, not the people in them.
Edited by Hobbesy, 13 August 2010 - 21:45.
BeefJeRKy 13 Aug 2010
TehKiller 14 Aug 2010
CJ 14 Aug 2010
TehKiller, on 14 Aug 2010, 11:08, said:
That certainly wouldn't happen if most religious persons weren't constantly trying to fill our heads that God exists...
I for one do not care about anyone's beliefs, as long as they're not acting like fundamentalists.