Pragmatic thread about religion [Archive] - Timog Forum

NemoySpruce

11-20-2007, 11:44 AM

This post was supposed to be a reply to Hensoldt's post on another thread. But as i read my reply, i decided it is not on topic for that thread so i just started this new one. Hensolt's question drives at the center of the problem with any religion. Be it Hindu, Catholic, Islam, Buddhist. Each of these necessarily follow some sort of scripture or sacred texts. Either written/spoken by God or an enlightened person. It is not permitted to change these texts, otherwise you risk destabilizing the entire belief system. The goal of the neophyte believer is to understand these texts, or rather understand how the experts interpret these texts and apply it to his life. Being neophyte, it is not allowed for him/her to interpret the texts himself/herself, because he/she lacks experience. The experts are also not allowed to change the scripture because it is considered sacred. It comes from God, or Mohammed or Buddha. What right does any religious leader have to change that which was written down by their supreme icon.

Which means all religious systems of beliefs are fixed. They are all based on something that is written down and cannot be changed. People, however, are very dynamic. We change. For some reason, we were designed to change. Be it by God or by Nature, we were designed to change. We were designed to improve ourselves, to adapt and survive by understanding our environment. This is what we are, we all know this. This is fact. You were a totally different person one year ago. Your child, although shares 50% of your genes, will become a totally different person. Your grandchildren will probably be taller, stronger, smarter than you. This means, any religious belief system will eventually break down. My point is, you cannot live your life based on the bible or scripture alone. Unless you go to some mountain and extricate yourself from humanity and stagnate yourself. You need something else, something more.

The reason why the bible breaks down when asked to prove discoveries like dinosaurs and carbon dating, is because it was not designed to do that. Its not a science book. I think one way is to view the bible like human civilization's diary. Although it was written more than 2000 years ago, there are still a lot of good lessons to be learned from it, but not all of it apply today.

Scientific theories are much more believable than creationist theories.

I wonder what creationists think about the existence of dinosaurs millions of years ago.

kakkoii_daw

11-20-2007, 12:39 PM

Stacie Fil

11-20-2007, 07:56 PM

^the bible is a giant "choose your own adventure" book, where interpretations are relative to the reader, wherein if you interprete like this... turn to page 66, else back to page 1. so much that a person go crazy believing that the judgement is near or he is the incarnation of the messiah...

I don't think so. People do that because they just doesn't have the grasp to comprehend what is written, more, to recognize the flow.

For me its like a coded message sent to a comrade on the other side of battle zone. So as not to be understood by any enemy even if they get hold of it. The people who truely can read/ undertand what message was in, are/were the one on the same side and only those who knows the code. You see, not all.

adechan

11-20-2007, 08:34 PM

Although it was written more than 2000 years ago, there are still a lot of good lessons to be learned from it, but not all of it apply today.

i believe the opposite of this. The Bible is applicable even today.

It was written for all generation.

Stacie Fil

11-20-2007, 08:46 PM

i believe the opposite of this. The Bible is applicable even today.

It was written for all generation.

Although it was written more than 2000 years ago, there are still a lot of good lessons to be learned from it, but not all of it apply today.

(Guess we miss/ over read sometimes)

ssshhhhh

11-20-2007, 09:00 PM

Although it was written more than 2000 years ago, there are still a lot of good lessons to be learned from it, but not all of it apply today.

(Guess we mis -read sometimes)

Can you please sight an instance or verses or stories in the bible that does not apply at all in todays generation. I like to be inlightened.

Stacie Fil

11-20-2007, 09:12 PM

stoning to death

crucifixion

Daniel and his company thrown in a large oven

thrown in a lion's den...etc

Also aside from the many symbolic passages given/found in the bible.

adechan

11-21-2007, 06:05 AM

stoning to death

crucifixion

Daniel and his company thrown in a large oven

thrown in a lion's den...etc

Also aside from the many symbolic passages given/found in the bible.

perhaps the exact situation is not already valid, but the teaching of it and the kind of faith still applicable and needed

cucifixion
Galatians 2:20 I had been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

crucifixion still goes on, the message of it still lives .... to those who truly love Christ, and willing to accept Christ

Daniel and his company thrown in fire
That kind of faith they showed is very much needed in this kind of generation we are living now. Inspite of what kind of problems and trials we face, even our life will be put on fire like Daniel and his friend, God is with us. We might not know the future. For the Antichrist are really getting mad with the solid Christians.

Thrown in a lion's den ~~~ look it is possible to be with the lions even you are not thrown in there, on those generation, all they thought that lions are wild, but in this present generation, lions can be use in circus and some make them pets

Understanding the scriptures really needs faith. Because no faith, all we have are with our own understanding or the understanding of this world. But with faith, we got the wisdom of God, and we understand the scriptures through God's understanding

The exact situation may not be applicable but the message of it are still applicable and needed

adechan

11-21-2007, 06:15 AM

For me its like a coded message sent to a comrade on the other side of battle zone. So as not to be understood by any enemy even if they get hold of it. The people who truely can read/ undertand what message was in, are/were the one on the same side and only those who knows the code.

I agree in here, the bible is designed to be understand by those who believe, and breath by the Spirit of God. Kaya nakasulat din ang mga bulag ay nakakakita pero hindi nalalaman, ang mga bingi ay nakakarinig pero hindi nakakaunawa. Dahil hindi para sa kanila. Hindi para sa kanila dahil hindi sila naniniwala.

kakkoii_daw

11-21-2007, 09:19 AM

Can you please sight an instance or verses or stories in the bible that does not apply at all in todays generation. I like to be inlightened.

add ko na ren ang human/animal sacrifices...
animals have rights too, they are not just a mere object to be offered to some higher beings...

NemoySpruce

11-21-2007, 09:55 AM

Hello adechan, before i reply to your posts I want to make a few things clear. First, I do read the bible(not regularly any more though) and I value the lessons I gain from it and try to apply it to my life. The Bible was a very important source of strength for me at a time of my life when I was in complete despair. I am not against reading the Bible, actually i encourage it. I respect your beliefs and do not want to change any of it. But before we can engage in any fruitful discussions, I just want to ask you one thing.

When you read the bible, do you abandon logic and reason?

This question is important, because thats what this thread is. A logical/reasonable view of religion. I believe it is possible to read and understand the bible, and appreciate other religions as well, without turning off one of God's(or whatever cosmic diety you believe in) greatest gift to us. The ability to use reason and logic. The starting point for all religions is a simple logical statement..."I think, therefore I am". everything begins from that. simple, logical, irrefutable yet we all know it to be true.

I think it would be a good idea if all who participate in this thread first agree that we should follow logic as basis for our discussions. And we should always remember that there is no right or wrong opinions, only different ones.

I agree in here, the bible is designed to be understand by those who believe, and breath by the Spirit of God. Kaya nakasulat din ang mga bulag ay nakakakita pero hindi nalalaman, ang mga bingi ay nakakarinig pero hindi nakakaunawa. Dahil hindi para sa kanila. Hindi para sa kanila dahil hindi sila naniniwala.

kakkoii_daw

11-21-2007, 11:29 AM

perhaps the exact situation is not already valid, but the teaching of it and the kind of faith still applicable and needed

no matter how you justify that the consequences resulting to these actions would strengthen your faith and would prove your adoration and love for god, its still immoral, the act itself is morally wrong...

infinite_trial

11-21-2007, 11:53 AM

I agree in here, the bible is designed to be understand by those who believe, and breath by the Spirit of God. Kaya nakasulat din ang mga bulag ay nakakakita pero hindi nalalaman, ang mga bingi ay nakakarinig pero hindi nakakaunawa. Dahil hindi para sa kanila. Hindi para sa kanila dahil hindi sila naniniwala.

so why do you use the bible against to those who do not believe if it's not designed for them?

The exact situation may not be applicable but the message of it are still applicable and needed

simply put as : the ends justify the means

so killing of indifels is okay as long as we put our message across?
beating of slaves is okay as long as they don't die right away? etc. etc.

Hensoldt

11-21-2007, 12:37 PM

My point is, you cannot live your life based on the bible or scripture alone. Unless you go to some mountain and extricate yourself from humanity and stagnate yourself. You need something else, something more.

True. :yesyes:

We used to think the world is flat, the earth was only 6,000 years old, and the earth is the center of the universe. Galileo was even ex-communicated just by stating facts that people at the time refused to believe.

We have to be open to ideas and possibilities to unravel the mysteries of this world and answer age old questions.

infinite_trial

11-21-2007, 01:23 PM

True. :yesyes:

We used to think the world is flat, the earth was only 6,000 years old, and the earth is the center of the universe. Galileo was even ex-communicated just by stating facts that people at the time refused to believe.

We have to be open to ideas and possibilities to unravel the mysteries of this world and answer age old questions.

do you think people will still believe in god if all/most questions can be answered by science in the future?

NemoySpruce

11-21-2007, 02:15 PM

What if God was simply a conscious entity that possessed the summation of all knowledge?

do you think people will still believe in god if all/most questions can be answered by science in the future?

infinite_trial

11-21-2007, 02:32 PM

What if God was simply a conscious entity that possessed the summation of all knowledge?

are you implying...

god = omniscience (without necesarily being omnipotent)

NemoySpruce

11-21-2007, 03:23 PM

are you implying...

god = omniscience (without necesarily being omnipotent)

hmmm... i guess i sort of implied that :) but i was replying to your post --> "do you think people will still believe in god if all/most questions can be answered by science in the future?"

i guess what i was trying to say was, what if God is explainable by science? Then we dont have to believe, we will know. Wouldnt that be better? If he is real, science should be able to explain him. Science basically is the way humans understand things. And if God wants us to understand him then how else are we to do that? i know, many people will say we need to understand him with our hearts. that really sounds good and cozy to hear, very comforting. but what does it mean to understand with your heart? you cant understand with your heart, you feel with your heart and understand with your brain... its like saying, im hungry, i think i will read a book. or hmmm, I cant seem to understand this movie, ill go smell a flower...??

Re: omniscience and omnipotence my view is, if you are omniscient and concious, then you should also be omnipotent.

kakkoii_daw

11-21-2007, 03:35 PM

do you think people will still believe in god if all/most questions can be answered by science in the future?

i guess god will believe in science...

Hensoldt

11-21-2007, 04:15 PM

do you think people will still believe in god if all/most questions can be answered by science in the future?
Old hobbits (habits) die hard. :p

i guess god will believe in science...
Good one. :D

adechan

11-21-2007, 04:23 PM

so why do you use the bible against to those who do not believe if it's not designed for them?.
Bakit may tinamaan ba?:bricks:
If I may sound like that, perhaps i did that for some reasons. I did that perhaps someone sounds like a Pharisees. But if i don't have a ground for doing that, I do need to make an apology for that.

Sharing the gospel is for all.
But even in Jesus time, he knows those who have unfaithful heart, thus Jesus used parables to let them be puzzled more. Because even how you explain the words to them, they will not understand it. Their hearts already refused and closed it for understanding. It can be found in Matthew 13.

But even if those are in parables, if a heart is willing to understand and believe God, it will be easy for them to understand it.

adechan

11-21-2007, 04:33 PM

When you read the bible, do you abandon logic and reason?

No I don't. I also have lots of why's and how come.

But my heart can't tolerate many reasoning, logics and informations that almost mock the Name of God, and blashphemous.

dodonpa

11-21-2007, 04:47 PM

No I don't. I also have lots of why's and how come.

But my heart can't tolerate many reasoning, logics and informations that almost mock the Name of God, and blashphemous.

Would it be safe to deduce that you can't indulge into a discussion about religion because your religion hinders you to ask questions?

I kinda remembered my dad when I was in the first grade when I asked about sex and he just told me that it's bad and that it was never to be brought up again.
:)

NemoySpruce

11-21-2007, 04:56 PM

No I don't. I also have lots of why's and how come.

Good! then that is what we will try to tackle in this thread. The whys and how comes.

But my heart can't tolerate many reasoning, logics and informations that almost mock the Name of God, and blashphemous.

I think I understand. It might help to remember that posts of that nature are not direct attacks to you(the reasonable ones anyway) and other posts laden with emotion are just childish retaliatory jabs reflexively thrown because you might have accidentally hurt someones feelings. Either case, dont let it affect you. Our purpose here is to learn from each other and expand what we know. There are no sides here.

infinite_trial

11-21-2007, 05:11 PM

hmmm... i guess i sort of implied that :) but i was replying to your post --> "do you think people will still believe in god if all/most questions can be answered by science in the future?"

i guess what i was trying to say was, what if God is explainable by science? Then we dont have to believe, we will know. Wouldnt that be better? If he is real, science should be able to explain him. Science basically is the way humans understand things. And if God wants us to understand him then how else are we to do that? i know, many people will say we need to understand him with our hearts. that really sounds good and cozy to hear, very comforting. but what does it mean to understand with your heart? you cant understand with your heart, you feel with your heart and understand with your brain... its like saying, im hungry, i think i will read a book. or hmmm, I cant seem to understand this movie, ill go smell a flower...??

Re: omniscience and omnipotence my view is, if you are omniscient and concious, then you should also be omnipotent.

but which god? thing is, we don't have a universal definition of god...so how will science prove it? science does not even try to refute the existence of a god/gods. it just so happened that science conflicts with dogmas of religions. new discoveries can always change an existing theory or abolish it. unlike in the bible, were everything written is supposed to be infallible.

Bakit may tinamaan ba?:bricks:
If I may sound like that, perhaps i did that for some reasons. I did that perhaps someone sounds like a Pharisees. But if i don't have a ground for doing that, I do need to make an apology for that.

no, don't try to put words in my mouth. tagalugin ko po yung sinabi nyo para magets nyo:

the bible is designed to be understand by those who believe

so kung ang makakaintindi lang pala ng bible e para dun sa naniniwala, bakit lagi nyong binabato kapag di naniniwala ang tao...masusunog sila sa impyerno? parang ang labo naman nun. inetsepwera na nga, tapos sa punishment biglang kasali. gets?

adechan

11-21-2007, 05:24 PM

Would it be safe to deduce that you can't indulge into a discussion about religion because your religion hinders you to ask questions?

I kinda remembered my dad when I was in the first grade when I asked about sex and he just told me that it's bad and that it was never to be brought up again.
:)

Perhaps we have different ways of finding answers to our why's and how come. Yes, you are right, as possible I really don't want to be involve much in discussions like this, if I have a question regarding my faith and the Bible, i must go to the right people. If I want to rationalize things, I do read and search other than the Bible. Mr. google and yahoo search is very good, it gives you the positives and the negatives, instantly.

Forum discussions are actually not bad at all. Kaya lang ...... iyun na iyun may kaya lang.

about your father, iba iba talaga ang tao at ang mga pananaw. But for sure no parents will tolerate that, pero sa generation ngayon, hindi na puwede ang ganiyang answer nang father mo. Children of this generation are more mature, they need a good explanation that will satisfy them, and let them think other things, other than their question.:)

NemoySpruce

11-21-2007, 05:29 PM

but which god? thing is, we don't have a universal definition of god...so how will science prove it? science does not even try to refute the existence of a god/gods. it just so happened that science conflicts with dogmas of religions. new discoveries can always change an existing theory or abolish it. unlike in the bible, were everything written is supposed to be infallible.

Hmmm. good point. which god? I dont know. But the existence of God (or a god) can be placed in a scientific context. for example the question "Was there a conscious entity that initiated human life on earth?" could be viewed as a scientific investigation to discover our origins and creator.

adechan

11-21-2007, 05:43 PM

no, don't try to put words in my mouth. tagalugin ko po yung sinabi nyo para magets nyo:

the bible is designed to be understand by those who believe

so kung ang makakaintindi lang pala ng bible e para dun sa naniniwala, bakit lagi nyong binabato kapag di naniniwala ang tao...masusunog sila sa impyerno? parang ang labo naman nun. inetsepwera na nga, tapos sa punishment biglang kasali. gets?

I only use Bible teachings because the topic is all about the Bible, faith and Christianity. Kung may unbeliever na tinatamaan niyan, malamang, siya iyung ayaw na nga nang Dios pero nandito pa rin sa religion.

I never discussed about the Bible if it is not on the right place, if there is an instance, I probably just shared my own experience, but not throwing it. Kahit sa personal, hindi ko ipinipilit ang pananampalataya ko sa mga kakilala ko.

Let me ask na rin, kase puzzled talaga ako sa iyo, palagi ka kaseng may tanong. Obvious kase na very interested ka pa rin sa religion lalo na sa Christianity.

What do you really want? To be enlightened that there is God, or to proved that there is no God?

kakkoii_daw

11-21-2007, 05:53 PM

What do you really want? To be enlightened that there is God, or to proved that there is no God?

when a person is asking questions, of course he/she seeks a logical answer, and not just be driven away or labeled as such... show them, dont throw at them... i've been threatened to be excommunicated before so i know the feeling... :)

dodonpa

11-21-2007, 05:53 PM

do you think people will still believe in god if all/most questions can be answered by science in the future?

People will just believe in a different thing/God/a supreme God. More questions will pile up. Who made God, after that who made God's creator, after that who made god's creator's creator?

Arrgh got lost in my own post something's distracting me.:eek:

infinite_trial

11-21-2007, 05:57 PM

Hmmm. good point. which god? I dont know. But the existence of God (or a god) can be placed in a scientific context. for example the question "Was there a conscious entity that initiated human life on earth?" could be viewed as a scientific investigation to discover our origins and creator.

ayun, mas pwede pa siguro. gaano kaya katagal mapapatunayan yan, kung meron man?

I only use Bible teachings because the topic is all about the Bible, faith and Christianity. Kung may unbeliever na tinatamaan niyan, malamang, siya iyung ayaw na nga nang Dios pero nandito pa rin sa religion.

I never discussed about the Bible if it is not on the right place, if there is an instance, I probably just shared my own experience, but not throwing it. Kahit sa personal, hindi ko ipinipilit ang pananampalataya ko sa mga kakilala ko.

Let me ask na rin, kase puzzled talaga ako sa iyo, palagi ka kaseng may tanong. Obvious kase na very interested ka pa rin sa religion lalo na sa Christianity.

What do you really want? To be enlightened that there is God, or to proved that there is no God?

ano daw? wag po kayong maging depensib kasi napakasimple lang naman ng tanong ko, pinepersonal nyo na naman...nakakapranin g yan sige kayo. i was not even talking about "patama", i was only talking about the logic of your statements.

and why do i feel everytime i raise a question, i need to explain myself.

i won't push it if you don't wanna answer my previous question.

adechan

11-21-2007, 06:07 PM

ayun, mas pwede pa siguro. gaano kaya katagal mapapatunayan yan, kung meron man?

ano daw? wag po kayong maging depensib kasi napakasimple lang naman ng tanong ko, pinepersonal nyo na naman...nakakapranin g yan sige kayo. i was not even talking about "patama", i was only talking about the logic of your statements.

and why do i feel everytime i raise a question, i need to explain myself.

i won't push it if you don't wanna answer my previous question.

ay sus, iyan ka na naman sa style mo, ikaw nga ang unang tanong nang tanong diyan, sinasagot ka naman ayaw mong intindihin

infinite_trial

11-21-2007, 06:09 PM

waaah ako pa po ang may style, wala naman po kayong sinagot...tinanong nyo na naman ako ng pagkatao ko. wala naman kinalaman yun sa discussion. pero sige ayos lang kung wala kayong sagot.

adechan

11-21-2007, 06:14 PM

when a person is asking questions, of course he/she seeks a logical answer, and not just be driven away or labeled as such... show them, dont throw at them... i've been threatened to be excommunicated before so i know the feeling... :)

when that someone is asking a question, and you had already proven from the previous discussion that her/his mind is already fixed unto something there's no way for discussion perhaps, he/she is fixed mined too is fixed:D

sayonara is the best, shutting it, o kaya huwag na lang magtanong pa kung hindi naman tatangap nang sagot

Kaya kung magtatanong kayo, be kind and polite din respect the answer

infinite_trial

11-21-2007, 06:21 PM

when that someone is asking a question, and you had already proven from the previous discussion that her/his mind is already fixed unto something there's no way for discussion perhaps, he/she is fixed mined too is fixed:D

sayonara is the best, shutting it, o kaya huwag na lang magtanong pa kung hindi naman tatangap nang sagot

Kaya kung magtatanong kayo, be kind and polite din respect the answer

that person won't ask questions if sumthin is indeed already proven. respect is out of the question...don't you think the same thing applies to you? your mind is already fixed with one answer to every/different question.

kung sasagot kayo, just stick with the question and avoid potshots.

adechan

11-21-2007, 06:25 PM

IT eto sagot ko
reposted
If I may sound like that, perhaps i did that for some reasons. I did that perhaps someone sounds like a Pharisees. But if i don't have a ground for doing that, I do need to make an apology for that.

Sharing the gospel is for all.
But even in Jesus time, he knows those who have unfaithful heart, thus Jesus used parables to let them be puzzled more. Because even how you explain the words to them, they will not understand it. Their hearts already refused and closed it for understanding. It can be found in Matthew 13.

quote from you
don't you think the same thing applies to you? your mind is already fixed with one answer to every/different question.

can't you understand my statement? .... i said "mine too is fixed"
I admit it, but i am not the one who is asking questions, it's you!

hey!!!!

ang haba na natin dito ah! sawa na ako, mukang wala naman tayong kakapuntahan dito ah kahit beso beso

dodonpa

11-21-2007, 06:31 PM

Catfight! Adechan do you have another avatar? Need to start up my imagination.
:D

I know it's freezing outside, but be cool. The PM function is there for something.:confused:

infinite_trial

11-21-2007, 06:38 PM

<irrelevant to the question so i didn't quote it on my post>
If I may sound like that, perhaps i did that for some reasons. I did that perhaps someone sounds like a Pharisees. But if i don't have a ground for doing that, I do need to make an apology for that.

Sharing the gospel is for all.
But even in Jesus time, he knows those who have unfaithful heart, thus Jesus used parables to let them be puzzled more. Because even how you explain the words to them, they will not understand it. Their hearts already refused and closed it for understanding. It can be found in Matthew 13.

the highlighted text refutes your own claim:

the bible is designed to be understand by those who believe

unless you equate:
all = to those who believe

gets?

adechan

11-21-2007, 06:40 PM

Catfight! Adechan do you have another avatar? Need to start up my imagination.
:D

I know it's freezing outside, but be cool. The PM function is there for something.:confused:

hmmm another avatar? let me work it out
I know this will happen at the very first place, and i did it.:bonk::bonk::bonk :
Buti na lang malamig talaga.

adechan

11-21-2007, 06:56 PM

the highlighted text refutes your own claim:

the bible is designed to be understand by those who believe

unless you equate:
all = to those who believe

gets?

hmmm
eto ang whole statement ko diyan

I agree in here, the bible is designed to be understand by those who believe, and breath by the Spirit of God.

your question
so why do you use the bible against to those who do not believe if it's not designed for them?.

I am not using it against them. They are asking questions, and it includes you, hoping you might understand and accept it even a little.

adechan

11-21-2007, 08:09 PM

After reviewing the thread especially me and IT's discussion, i think IT is the winner and i am willing to give it to her.
Reasons.
1. She was able to place me in situation like this, i don't like discussion that looks like debate.
2. It did looked like debate because I didn't able to answer well that will satisfy IT
3. The root of the discussion started from my statement.
4. IT gave me a lesson how to handle situation like this, and gave me an idea how will I handle her questions again if there are next times.

~~~~~~~~
To be not totally out of topic.

If we will include to the discussion about the Bible, i want to share this very important thing, the very reason it is really hard to understand, it is because of unbelief.
According to the Bible, God is Spirit, and the scriptures can be more easily understand through the Spirit. Literal understanding of it is of course, the first step of learning the Bible. But I can attest, without accepting that we are a born sinner, repenting and accepting Christ, we cannot received the Holy Spirit. Because the Holy Spirit will be the guide for us to totally understand the mystery in the Bible, and the said conflicts. Everything there is written for a reason.

infinite_trial

11-21-2007, 09:18 PM

there is no contest here, we're just exchanging questions and opinions.

adechan

11-21-2007, 10:29 PM

there is no contest here, we're just exchanging questions and opinions.
feel ko lang para kase tayong nag co contest eh

NemoySpruce

11-22-2007, 10:25 AM

infinite_trial

11-22-2007, 10:45 AM

There is no contest, wala naman premyo pag manalo... pero a healthy dose of competition is always welcome :) mas buhay ang discussion at di maiiwasan na mag compete pag talagang paniniwala mo ang tinataya mo sa usapan. In this thread, we have agreed that logic should not be discarded. derpor logic will decide if an argument is sound or not. minsan nangyayari na hindi naman pala kontra sa isat isa ang sinasabi ng magkabilang panig, pero minsan din, may isang mali at may isang tama. I have found that it is constructive to understand what the person im discussing with, is trying to tell me. And if his/her point his correct, I accept my mistake and move on. This is one of the best ways of learning for me. Masakit kasi mahanapan ng mali, kaya nababaon sa utak ko. In this way, I believe I improve myself.

i agree with what you've said. i am only asking a question so there's nuthin to be hostile about. people have different ways of interpreting a certain statement, so it is important that you both establish a common definition of terms before you move on to a discussion. if you are sharing a gospel, teaching, or whatchamacallit, you should be consistent, or else your followers will get confused. the only thing i don't understand, when it comes to religious discussions...the non-believer or even a person with a different belief is discouraged to join, which i don't think is right. if you say the gospel of god is for all (those who want to believe), then so be it. but ain't it ironic to go on nagging em about hell and punishment if they don't believe it in the first place? it's not about "natatamaan" or demand for "respect"...it's just plain ironic.

imagine this discussion:
believer (to non-believer): bahala ka kung ayaw mong maniwala, di naman para sa iyo to, para lang sa naniniwala.
non-believer: oh okay
believer: pero masusunog ka sa impyerno
non-believer: duh!

adechan

11-22-2007, 11:00 AM

imagine this discussion:
believer (to non-believer): bahala ka kung ayaw mong maniwala, di naman para sa iyo to, para lang sa naniniwala.
non-believer: oh okay
believer: pero masusunog ka sa impyerno
non-believer: duh!
dugtungan natin
believer: wala kang magagawa, at wala din akong magagawa
ang nakasulat ay nakasulat at iyan ang katuruan

dugtungan

sarpon

11-22-2007, 11:01 AM

infinite_trial

11-22-2007, 11:03 AM

dugtungan natin
believer: wala kang magagawa, at wala din akong magagawa
ang nakasulat ay nakasulat at iyan ang katuruan

dugtungan

that's what i'm talkin about.

sorry to the threadstarter, didn't mean to hijack the thread. now let's move on to more sensible discussions.

NemoySpruce

11-22-2007, 11:20 AM

i just notice this.. any discussion / talk about religion ALWAYS turns into a debate. No matter what our intention is (like this thread), it always ends up two sides arguing with each others opinion. is it just us Filipinos? If so, maybe its probably because religion is such a big part of our culture. But hey, I commend you guys for this thread. It didn't sounds like a thread made just to promote certain beliefs. This is really what a forum should be - healthy exchange of ideas. cheers!

Thanks for that sarpon. It is very good to hear that some members of TF 'get it' :)

The reason why it always turns into a debate is because people that usually participate in forums to discuss beliefs/religion or lack thereof are very passionate people. I personally enjoy energized discussions and I think some tussels are acceptable, as long as we are moving and learning along the way. besides as dodonpa said (or implied :)) we guys always enjoy a good catfight. even if it is only in our heads... i think its the hope/fantasy that the combatants will eventually kiss and make up. I dunno about the rest of you but Id pay good money to see that show.

adechan

11-22-2007, 11:50 AM

adechan: To understand the bible, you have to believe. If you dont believe then the bible is not for you.
IT: cited that adechan said "sharing the bible is for all" therfore it should include non-believers.

tama po ba ang pagkaintindi ko?
may correction lang, bible and gospel is quite different. Ang sinabi ko yata gospel at hindi Bible. Gospel is a part of the Bible. Gospel is the good news of salvation through Jesus.

see here sharing gospel is for all including the non-believers.

And in sharing there will be those who will accept and will believe, and those uncertain.

Those who believe, and they will be willing to know more about the scripture, they will need to study and learn the Bible. Clear ba?

But those who rejected the gospel. They rejected Jesus. They do not need the Bible. They will not understand it, because they didn't believe at the very first step of it. How come they will go to the next step? Clear ba?

To those uncertain if they will believe, they believe but in part, or etc. they have many face. Some can't resist and still look from some parts of the Bible. They understand some, and puzzled on some. But because they didn't accepted yet Jesus in Spirit, Bible is still hard for them to understand, but God knows their hearts, and there is a seasonal time for them.

And here, we can see also which we belong. Many was been Christian for so long but they can't understand the Bible, it is because they didn't really accepted yet Jesus in their life. To repent and surrender to Jesus.

But there is no condemnation for those who don't totally accepted Jesus in their life.

Total rejection and not believing is a very different thing to those who try to believe even they still lack of knowledge, and capabilities.

OT
gomeni for this long one again ~~ i know iknow ~~ parang ang kulet ko rin ... but i can't sleep without saying what i want (call na ambulance)

Bond

11-22-2007, 11:57 AM

dugtungan natin
believer: wala kang magagawa, at wala din akong magagawa
ang nakasulat ay nakasulat at iyan ang katuruan

dugtungan

Pwede kang magpakumbaba, adechan. Nakasulat 'yan sa Bible. ;)

adechan

11-22-2007, 12:00 PM

Pwede kang magpakumbaba, adechan. Nakasulat 'yan sa Bible. ;)

I admit it I am guilty .....

Nakikipatol ako sa hindi na dapat

dianne

11-22-2007, 12:07 PM

God Bless You All ....:)

kakkoii_daw

11-22-2007, 03:16 PM

"Was there a conscious entity that initiated human life on earth?"
nemoy dude, can we now go to the main course?... im fed up with mani as an appetizer...

if there is a conscious entity back then, what is he doing prior to his creations? if he was all that existed in eternity, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and forced him to create?...

NemoySpruce

11-22-2007, 04:45 PM

nemoy dude, can we now go to the main course?... im fed up with mani as an appetizer...

if there is a conscious entity back then, what is he doing prior to his creations? if he was all that existed in eternity, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and forced him to create?...

Okey pare, geym...parang kelangan na natin nang beer ...

To answer these kinds of questions, we have to leave the realm of science and venture into philosophy. There is no scientific evidence to even suggest that there was a consciousness that created the universe. Even the BigBang theory does not attempt to try to explain why it happened.

So as we have promised never to leave logic behind, let us use logic when we make our conjectures.

One possibility, and this was discussed in Scott Adams short e-book 'Gods Debris' ... he suggested the idea that God went insane. Imagine floating alone in the dark with no sound and nobody to talk to and nothing to do... diba mababaliw ka nun? So what he did was, he destroyed himself. He committed suicide. And hence the universe was born. Scott Adams suggests that we are Gods Debris... we are trying to rebuild into God... to make it clear, I do not believe this happened. Scott Adams is not a philosopher, he is a cartoonist. Its just an interesting idea. It is also very creative and very logical, but not necessarily true.

g33k

11-22-2007, 05:00 PM

^ do god floats?

infinite_trial

11-22-2007, 05:02 PM

^ do god float?

i want that with rootbeer please

NemoySpruce

11-22-2007, 05:16 PM

^ do god floats?

He could if he wanted to. He is supposed to be omnipotent :)

i want that with rootbeer please

o. tagay mo... :toast:

Bond

11-22-2007, 05:20 PM

Okey pare, geym...parang kelangan na natin nang beer ...

One possibility, and this was discussed in Scott Adams short e-book 'Gods Debris' ... he suggested the idea that God went insane. Imagine floating alone in the dark with no sound and nobody to talk to and nothing to do... diba mababaliw ka nun? So what he did was, he destroyed himself. He committed suicide. And hence the universe was born. Scott Adams suggests that we are Gods Debris... we are trying to rebuild into God... to make it clear, I do not believe this happened. Scott Adams is not a philosopher, he is a cartoonist. Its just an interesting idea. It is also very creative and very logical, but not necessarily true.

One speculation too is we were created by aliens much superior than us and programmed our minds to make discussions like this. Beer please. :D

g33k

11-22-2007, 05:22 PM

He could if he wanted to. He is supposed to be omnipotent :)

if god is omnipotent. what is the criteria to become omnipotent too?

dodonpa

11-22-2007, 05:45 PM

God went insane. Imagine floating alone in the dark with no sound and nobody to talk to and nothing to do... diba mababaliw ka nun? So what he did was, he destroyed himself.

Assuming God is omnipotent why didn't he/she just snap his/her fingers and made him/herself better / feel better / make another "god" to talk too ?

Assuming God didn't have control over his/her insanity, (although I don't think this would be possible because of god's omnipotence)

Before people go insane because of loneliness they feel sadness due to the loneliness. Again, if god is omnipotent why didn't he/she just snap his/her fingers and made it all go away. :)

dodonpa

11-22-2007, 05:58 PM

if god is omnipotent. what is the criteria to become omnipotent too?

What is god's degree of omnipotence? Does that power have limits? If no, then I have a question for all, An omnipotent (no limits) god can do/make anything. Let's say we challenge god, "God, make the most difficult math problem ever!" God then snaps fingers and the most difficult math problem arises. 2nd challenge " Solve that!"

Situation 1
If god solves the math problem the problem then turns out to be not the most difficult problem ever.(thus non omnipotent)

Situation 2
If god can not solve the math problem, that means god is not almighty/omnipotent

infinite_trial

11-22-2007, 06:06 PM

^ hehe that's why there's no such thing as "omnipotent"

g33k

11-22-2007, 06:24 PM

:hihi: if being "omnipotent" is universally laid down {attributes, properties, etc} then we might all be racing to be one :D

g33k

11-22-2007, 06:31 PM

What is god's degree of omnipotence? Does that power have limits? If no, then I have a question for all, An omnipotent (no limits) god can do/make anything. Let's say we challenge god, "God, make the most difficult math problem ever!" God then snaps fingers and the most difficult math problem arises. 2nd challenge " Solve that!"

Situation 1
If god solves the math problem the problem then turns out to be not the most difficult problem ever.(thus non omnipotent)

Situation 2
If god can not solve the math problem, that means god is not almighty/omnipotent

if the "omnipotent being" (if there really was) solved the problem, then that is a valid Math Problem :D otherwise, it is not :hihi:

infinite_trial

11-22-2007, 09:51 PM

if the "omnipotent being" (if there really was) solved the problem, then that is a valid Math Problem :D otherwise, it is not :hihi:

logically absurd
eto ba yung variation nung "can god create a rock so huge, he cannot lift it?" :hihi:

NemoySpruce

11-23-2007, 11:44 AM

Reminder lang po, we have left the realm of science and we are now in the world of philosophy. We are trying to determine if the word 'omnipotent' makes any sense. Our discussion has no bearing on reality, if it is proved that omnipotence is illogical, it still does not prove there is no God. It just proves that our concept of omnipotence is flawed.

my view:

Task 1: create a large rock that you are not able to lift.
- an omnipotent being can do this by reducing his power. for the period of the task he can choose to become not-omnipotent. for the single task of lifting the rock, in that instance, he is able to do everything else except lift the rock. task accomplished.

Task 2: lift that rock.
- the semi omnipotent being (able to do everything except lift the rock) commands that it regain the ability to lift the rock. then lifts the rock.

tasks accomplished, being retains his omnipotent title.

logically absurd
eto ba yung variation nung "can god create a rock so huge, he cannot lift it?" :hihi:

NemoySpruce

11-23-2007, 12:20 PM

Assuming God is omnipotent why didn't he/she just snap his/her fingers and made him/herself better / feel better / make another "god" to talk too ?

Assuming God didn't have control over his/her insanity, (although I don't think this would be possible because of god's omnipotence)

Before people go insane because of loneliness they feel sadness due to the loneliness. Again, if god is omnipotent why didn't he/she just snap his/her fingers and made it all go away. :)

he did snap his fingers and made it all go away. he destroyed himself. that was his solution.

g33k

11-23-2007, 12:57 PM

Reminder lang po, we have left the realm of science and we are now in the world of philosophy. We are trying to determine if the word 'omnipotent' makes any sense. Our discussion has no bearing on reality, if it is proved that omnipotence is illogical, it still does not prove there is no God. It just proves that our concept of omnipotence is flawed.

my view:

Task 1: create a large rock that you are not able to lift.
- an omnipotent being can do this by reducing his power. for the period of the task he can choose to become not-omnipotent. for the single task of lifting the rock, in that instance, he is able to do everything else except lift the rock. task accomplished.

Task 2: lift that rock.
- the semi omnipotent being (able to do everything except lift the rock) commands that it regain the ability to lift the rock. then lifts the rock.

tasks accomplished, being retains his omnipotent title.

Task 2 contradicts "he cannot lift". thus the being is not omnipotent :D

looking at the question logically:
---> can god create a rock so huge, he cannot lift it?

this question dictates a single acceptable answer because of this: "he cannot lift" ;)

dodonpa

11-23-2007, 05:33 PM

he did snap his fingers and made it all go away. he destroyed himself. that was his solution.

Wikipedia
Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the various conceptions of god. The most common among these include omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence.

I assume these are aspects that make God god.
Insanity and destruction both contradict what makes God god.

1
Merriam Webster
Insanity- a deranged state of the mind or lack of understanding.
Omniscient - having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight

2
How can god eternaly exist if he destroyed him/herself?
:)

NemoySpruce

11-24-2007, 12:55 PM

Its actually two tasks :) but when omnipotent guy does the first you judge him by the second. If he does the second, you judge him by the first. its like that scene in Bruce all mighty, when jim carey tried to trick god(morgan freeman) into guessing the wrong number of fingers he was going to hold up... basically, the question is illogical :) and the next stage of this discussion is.. can God do illogical things?

Task 2 contradicts "he cannot lift". thus the being is not omnipotent :D

looking at the question logically:
---> can god create a rock so huge, he cannot lift it?

this question dictates a single acceptable answer because of this: "he cannot lift" ;)

NemoySpruce

11-24-2007, 01:12 PM

your description used 'or' not 'and' meaning not both definitions need to be true. in any case, that description is for regular mortals like you and me. who knows what the definition of insanity is for a god. We can not know if god thinks like we do, but the theory assumes that he feels some of the emotions that we feel, and complete isolation is one of the most severe mental and emotional tortures known to us. Thats how i understand the theory, Im not sure if thats what Scott Adams was thinking.

how can he eternally exist? hmm. well he didnt delete himself, he just destroyed himself. he is still here, only in different form. the theory proposes that HE, is us. we are bits and pieces of him, matter, energy, time and conciousness are actually pieces of God trying to re-incorporate or reorganize back into Him. very interesting notion :)

Wikipedia
Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the various conceptions of god. The most common among these include omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence.

I assume these are aspects that make God god.
Insanity and destruction both contradict what makes God god.

1
Merriam Webster
Insanity- a deranged state of the mind or lack of understanding.
Omniscient - having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight

2
How can god eternaly exist if he destroyed him/herself?
:)

dodonpa

11-24-2007, 01:39 PM

dodonpa

11-24-2007, 01:49 PM

how can he eternally exist? hmm. well he didnt delete himself, he just destroyed himself. he is still here, only in different form. the theory proposes that HE, is us. we are bits and pieces of him, matter, energy, time and conciousness are actually pieces of God trying to re-incorporate or reorganize back into Him. very interesting notion :)

So god still exists thru us? I was on the assumption that when you destroy something it ceases to exist as a whole? In this guy's theory I think the proper term instead of destroy would've been reinvent/redo/remake?

I forgot to type in /she in my earlier post. Still open to the idea that it's either way. :)

Stacie Fil

11-25-2007, 02:02 AM

your description used 'or' not 'and' meaning not both definitions need to be true. in any case, that description is for regular mortals like you and me. who knows what the definition of insanity is for a god. We can not know if god thinks like we do, but the theory assumes that he feels some of the emotions that we feel, and complete isolation is one of the most severe mental and emotional tortures known to us. Thats how i understand the theory, Im not sure if thats what Scott Adams was thinking.

how can he eternally exist? hmm. well he didnt delete himself, he just destroyed himself. he is still here, only in different form. the theory proposes that HE, is us. we are bits and pieces of him, matter, energy, time and conciousness are actually pieces of God trying to re-incorporate or reorganize back into Him. very interesting notion :)

So god still exists thru us? I was on the assumption that when you destroy something it ceases to exist as a whole? In this guy's theory I think the proper term instead of destroy would've been reinvent/redo/remake?

I forgot to type in /she in my earlier post. Still open to the idea that it's either way. :)

Basically its not easy to define things when talking things of different levels or dimension. Its like talking about matter and anti matter

Going back to the original question of NemuySpruce, let me site an analogy. This is just a personal example as to demonstrate and simplify the working principle so we can have a view.

Considering Gods' being as like parent. The presence of dualities within that are working harmoneously together, thus producing endless potentials to all his created beings. For me is like;

A generator that contineously rotates and constantly create electricity; electrical current that niether occupy space, has no mass, but only can be observe and felt.

:)

dodonpa

11-25-2007, 12:48 PM

Basically its not easy to define things when talking things of different levels or dimension. Its like talking about matter and anti matter

Yes, I agree a lot of philosophers, theologians and critical thinkers have tried defining god and some of them ended up; a: with a lot more questions b: a very abstract definition c: a new religion d: crazy

dodonpa

11-25-2007, 12:52 PM

For me is like;

A generator that contineously rotates and constantly create electricity; electrical current that niether occupy space, has no mass, but only can be observe and felt.

:)

Will this generator continue to create electricity even if the end consumers do not believe that there is a generator?

:)

g33k

11-25-2007, 01:04 PM

how can he eternally exist? hmm. well he didnt delete himself, he just destroyed himself. he is still here, only in different form. the theory proposes that HE, is us. we are bits and pieces of him, matter, energy, time and conciousness are actually pieces of God trying to re-incorporate or reorganize back into Him. very interesting notion :)

if we are bits and pieces of him, then the "bad" things we do is just a part of who he really is? therefore that omnipotent being is not eternally good at all?

NemoySpruce

11-25-2007, 01:29 PM

So god still exists thru us? I was on the assumption that when you destroy something it ceases to exist as a whole? In this guy's theory I think the proper term instead of destroy would've been reinvent/redo/remake?

I forgot to type in /she in my earlier post. Still open to the idea that it's either way. :)

Thats a weird assumption, read up on 'Law of conservation of energy' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_ener gy)

Yes, I agree a lot of philosophers, theologians and critical thinkers have tried defining god and some of them ended up; a: with a lot more questions b: a very abstract definition c: a new religion d: crazy

and your point is?

if we are bits and pieces of him, then the "bad" things we do is just a part of who he really is? therefore that omnipotent being is not eternally good at all?

define good.

g33k

11-25-2007, 02:37 PM

Thats a weird assumption, read up on 'Law of conservation of energy' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_ener gy)

and your point is?

define good.

in google, type "define: good" without the quotes :D peace ;)

googles match (http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+g ood&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) of what good is :D

also, if you or someone can lay down "those bits" then perhaps we can say that the omnipotent being is a fragment of non-omnipotent being like us ;). meaning all that can be observed/felt by our senses, collectively resembles he/she/it.

dodonpa

11-25-2007, 05:37 PM

Thats a weird assumption, read up on 'Law of conservation of energy' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_ener gy)

If you are comparing God to Energy well "your" law states that energy can not be created or destroyed. Thus the destruction theory by Scott Adams is again contradicted. No?

"the law of conservation of energy states that energy can not be created or destroyed"

I assume destruction and destroyed are of different meanings? Unless they areCobra's vice leader's older brothers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destro)?

Now if you likened God to a massive chunk of matter that would be a different thing.
As StacyFil said use an easy analogy, let's say a building get's destroyed using dynamite. The building as a whole doesn't exist only bits, pieces and debris? Or does it? Unless David Copperfield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Copperfield_%2 8illusionist%29) was there.... well we are not sure?

dodonpa

11-25-2007, 05:52 PM

and your point is?

I was agreeing with Stacy Fil's point that defining god and using a human and God comparison is difficult. That is why many people have tried to do it in the past and it's still unfinished. (This of course depends on a person's faith)

Thus the Stacy Fil Quote:)

Plus I think she is really hot...

Thus the agreement:D

infinite_trial

11-25-2007, 06:48 PM

Thus the Stacy Fil Quote:)

Plus I think she is really hot...

Thus the agreement:D

dude, sorry to shatter your fantasy...but our mod is a He :D

dodonpa

11-25-2007, 06:49 PM

I assume destruction and destroyed are of different meanings? Unless they areCobra's vice leader's older brothers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destro)?

My bad... Couldn't edit... please change different to the same.

Reason for Editing - Too many beers

:p

dodonpa

11-25-2007, 06:51 PM

dude, sorry to shatter your fantasy...but our mod is a He :D

What the??:confused: That's alright! There's always you.:D

Stacie Fil

11-25-2007, 11:22 PM

if we are bits and pieces of him, then the "bad" things we do is just a part of who he really is? therefore that omnipotent being is not eternally good at all?

I think that the idea is not about having a bit and pieces of Him. But realising that in all entity, there is a similar aspect within. Its like all has "quanta". Then, all being connected by networks of quantum energy packets.

To the next Q. If you will consider a bible as a posible source of idea to verify the validity of your Q. You will realized that the coming of what we call evil, mistake or sin, was only after creation and not part of the original plan. The plan was derailed and comes an intrusion of new concept that contaminated the only good and pure process of creation towards its full maturity or perfection.

NemoySpruce

11-26-2007, 09:30 AM

As StacyFil said use an easy analogy, let's say a building get's destroyed using dynamite. The building as a whole doesn't exist only bits, pieces and debris? Or does it? Unless David Copperfield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Copperfield_%2 8illusionist%29) was there.... well we are not sure?

sigh... your analogy would work, if the building's bits and pieces were conscious and tried to 'reorganize' themselves back into the building. mmkhay? :) i still dont get what your trying to say? do you think the theory is illogical? or you just have a problem with using the word 'destroyed' ?

kakkoii_daw

11-26-2007, 10:10 AM

NemoySpruce

11-26-2007, 10:38 AM

^nice book dude, im now reading god debris... :D

since god destroyed himself and became bits of us, are we saying that, now, he is inlcuded in the timeline, so is he no longer bound by time? and we're discussing the immanent conception of god as oppose to the transcendent definition. or can he be on both?

:) haha.. trip yan basahin pag laseng ka pare... maganda yan tanong mo. what does it mean to be 'not bound by time' ... what is time?

infinite_trial

11-26-2007, 10:47 AM

^nice book dude, im now reading god debris... :D

since god destroyed himself and became bits of us, are we saying that, now, he is inlcuded in the timeline, so is he no longer bound by time? and we're discussing the immanent conception of god as oppose to the transcendent definition. or can he be on both?

if he is omnipotent and omnipresent, he can be both :D

kakkoii_daw

11-26-2007, 10:57 AM

:) haha.. trip yan basahin pag laseng ka pare... maganda yan tanong mo. what does it mean to be 'not bound by time' ... what is time?
hehe, sige patagay muna ng rum...
there are two distinct views on time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time). also let us take into consideration about eternity, which is beyond the scope of time, as oppose to everlasting.

if he is omnipotent and omnipresent, he can be both :D
for that read bout Charles Hartshorne's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Hartshorne) view that god is both immanent and transcendent.

dodonpa

11-26-2007, 11:52 AM

sigh... your analogy would work, if the building's bits and pieces were conscious and tried to 'reorganize' themselves back into the building. mmkhay? :) i still dont get what your trying to say? do you think the theory is illogical? or you just have a problem with using the word 'destroyed' ?

Dodonpa's point

Theory is illogical because of the word destroyed. If God is almighty/omnipotent then why can he/she be destroyed? or If god is omnipotent then he/she can't do everything because he/she can't destroy him/herself. We are just gonna go back to the omnipotence paradox.

The theory might work out if the one who thought of it used a different word other than destroyed. My suggestions were in my earlier post.(remade or reinvent or something synonymous)

I did the matter analogy because you compared god to energy making this guy's theory again illogical.

:)

NemoySpruce

11-26-2007, 02:45 PM

If God is omnipotent, then he can destroy himself if he wanted to? if he couldnt, then he is not omnipotent :D no? I did not compare god to energy, I just linked to the law of conservation of energy, my point was, when you 'destroy' something, it does not vanish into nothing. The theory is, that these bits or 'debris' are sentient, and are trying to re-incorporate into the original system that was 'destroyed' ... makes perfect sense, I dont see what your problem with that seems to be.

Dodonpa's point

Theory is illogical because of the word destroyed. If God is almighty/omnipotent then why can he/she be destroyed? or If god is omnipotent then he/she can't do everything because he/she can't destroy him/herself. We are just gonna go back to the omnipotence paradox.

The theory might work out if the one who thought of it used a different word other than destroyed. My suggestions were in my earlier post.(remade or reinvent or something synonymous)

I did the matter analogy because you compared god to energy making this guy's theory again illogical.

:)

dodonpa

11-26-2007, 02:54 PM

If God is omnipotent, then he can destroy himself if he wanted to? if he couldnt, then he is not omnipotent :D no? I did not compare god to energy, I just linked to the law of conservation of energy, my point was, when you 'destroy' something, it does not vanish into nothing. The theory is, that these bits or 'debris' are sentient, and are trying to re-incorporate into the original system that was 'destroyed' ... makes perfect sense, I dont see what your problem with that seems to be.

I did not say that when you destroy something it vanishes into thin air. I said it no longer exists as a whole (matter wise, remember the bulding?).:D I think the theory would be more correct(logical) if the one who thought about it changed destroyed. And no, I don't have a problem with it. :)

NemoySpruce

11-26-2007, 03:10 PM

Do you read Sandman? by Neil Gaiman, one of the characters there is called destruction (http://julest.com/sandman/destruction.html). He is lord of the Realm of Change. This discussion just reminded me of that.

I did not say that when you destroy something it vanishes into thin air. I said it no longer exists as a whole (matter wise, remember the bulding?).:D I think the theory would be more correct(logical) if the one who thought about it changed destroyed. And no, I don't have a problem with it. :)