quote:But, as you said, the moral hinge-point and the core premise are the opposite of the original. Opposite but still equally valid to an objective mind.
*sigh* No. You have missed the point of the question completely. It is not "hey, wouldn't it be funny if it turned out that God was a jerk?" It is, rather, "I expect that many of you would say that you would refuse to accept the status quo were it revealed that God is a jerk. Why, then, do you accept the status quo now?" ...
Well then I guess I did miss the point. The original question paraphrased was - What if God confirmed his own existance, and further confirmed that the hate-mongering televangelist are right. What would you do?
Well I would think he was a pretty poor God, and doubt the 'proof' significantly.
But I ask, what if good proved his existance, and told those tied to religious dogma, hate, fear mongering. power, and greed that they are wrong?
I'm not saying the original question is necessarily a wrong philosophical point. I merely saying that the opposite philosophical point it just as valid to argue.
What if they are right?
Well, what if they are wrong?
I think the title question is far more interesting than the follow up question.
What if God proved his own existance?
To which I added -
What if WE prove God existance, or at least the existance of the afterlife?
That seem a fair philosophical question. But whether Religious Dogma is right seems to me a question that demands an agreement with dogma.
Personally, I think the certainty with which religious dogma is presented, in and of itself, pretty much proves it wrong.
But then ... that's just my opinion.
Posts: 803 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man, especially a rich man of allegedly God, to get into heaven.
Just real quick: "The eye of the needle" is a phrase that means the small gap in a walled city through which only one person at a time could enter, or one unburdened camel.
This is the danger in translating from one language and culture to another. This phrase means: A rich man my only get to heaven after unburdening himself of his worldly goods.
And in looking for a quote or reference to support the above, I find I am wrong wrong wrong...oh well. Ignore the above.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:prove the existance of God by finding the "God Particle"
Agh. I hope you are not referring to the Higgs boson, here? This is exactly why scientists should stick to neutral language. The Higgs boson, if it exists, is field that gives the mass property to other fields through its interaction with them. It is no more mysterious, godly, or spiritual than the electron, which is also an excitation in a field. Why couldn't whichever idiot coined this phrase have called it the "King Particle" (not that that would make much more sense since it in no sense rules the other particles) and avoided the instant "scientists confirm existence of God" meme? Or if that was not democratic enough, how about "President Particle"? Better still, flatter the agency that gives us funding and call it the "Congress Particle". Actually that would even make a slight amount of sense since 'congress' is another word for 'interaction' and it is the interaction that makes the Higgs field important.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, Player B has retained his free will. Sure, Player B's options became more limited with each turn, as he moved closer to defeat, but his ability to choose was never robbed or infringed on.
Player B never made a meaningful choice, and was robbed of the ability to do so. Ergo, he had no free will.
Define meaningful. Does meaning mean the choices you make result in the outcome you desire? I see people all the time try to make choices that simply will never work, like continually demanding that others trust them, despite the fact that they choose to act untrustworthy. Their choice to act untrustworthy while expecting trust to follow is a meaningless choice. Just like a person who chooses to step off a cliff because he believes he can defy gravity. Nobody forced him to take the step but his choice to fly will not yield the outcome he desires because his choices don't have the power to change laws. For example, if my free will does not allow me to change the laws of physics simply through the act of willing it, does that mean I have no free will?
But I can use my free will to find ways to fly, which don't require me to break natural laws through willpower.
If we say that God is the governor of all the laws in the universe, then we have the choice to follow those laws and reap the benefits, or choose to defy those laws and reap the futility of it.
quote:Does meaning mean the choices you make result in the outcome you desire?
No. It means that the choices you make alter the outcome.
quote:If we say that God is the governor of all the laws in the universe, then we have the choice to follow those laws and reap the benefits, or choose to defy those laws and reap the futility of it.
And that is the point of the original poster's question. Opposition to a jerkwad God is futile -- but is it meaningless?
quote:For example, if my free will does not allow me to change the laws of physics simply through the act of willing it, does that mean I have no free will?
No, that's silly. But if someone presents you with a choice between a lady and tiger, but has always arranged to put the tiger behind the door you pick, your choice is meaningless.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:prove the existance of God by finding the "God Particle"
Agh. I hope you are not referring to the Higgs boson, here? ...
No, I guess I have heard the Higgs Boson referred to as the "God Particle", but in the sense I'm speaking of, I merely mean science finding some means of determining that a substantial and real 'God' does exist.
Short of that, confirming that there is a spiritual essence in the world in which the physically dead live on.
As I also pointed out, I reject the hyper-personified God of most religions. That seem more like man making God in his own image, than the opposite.
Hyper-personified God also allows the assignment of spiteful vengeful attributes that I seriously doubt any God worth a salt would be likely to have.
Hell wasn't created by God, it was created by men to control other men. It is easy to blackmail people into blind obedience, when the rejection of that obedience is a lake of fire.
Posts: 803 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"No, that's silly. But if someone presents you with a choice between a lady and tiger, but has always arranged to put the tiger behind the door you pick, your choice is meaningless." (TomD)
This is the very hinge of faith.
Exchange "tiger" with "death" in your door-opening ceremony and you'll see how the death-tiger operates. Meaning, like free will, is a human construct.
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: Hell wasn't created by God, it was created by men to control other men. It is easy to blackmail people into blind obedience, when the rejection of that obedience is a lake of fire.
Why don't you 'get' that regardless of the Machiavellian strategy you feel you've "seen through", it is all and always, of course, merely part this sort of God's plan?! That's the way "he" implements "Hell" for that sort of people (i.e., rhetorically e.g., for the Middle Ages etc.) Just as today, Hell's now isomorphic implementation over top of our world(somewhat paradoxically I would agree) makes it conceptually invisible (the excellent folk version of this theme is in the movie "The Matrix" .....or in that old commercial for Palmolive dish detergent "Madge, you're soaking in it!"!
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think part of the problem of this discussion is how we define omnipotence. I see two alternatives for omnipotence:
1) Having the power to do anything that is doable.
2) Having the power to do anything that can be fathomed by an omniscient being.
A) In the first example, there are certain laws of existence upon which reality is based, and the omnipotent being understands all of reality in its entirety, and therefore has power to exercise those laws to the fullest and absolute extent.
B) In the second example, there are no laws of existence. There are only laws that this omnipotent being imagines up. Absolutely everything in existence can be changed in absolutely anyway by this being.
A) In the first example, there are certain laws that an omnipotent being can't do, like make the society of heaven operate based on hatred and selfishness, or force the devil to become good by nature.
B) In the second example, this omnipotent being can do whatever the hell it pleases. It can make a reality where everyone hates each other and they actually enjoy this way of life. It can take one individual and literally make this individual become someone else, i.e. make YOU suddenly become Bill Clinton both in body and in spirit, thus obliterating your eternal identity.
A) In the first example, this being knows how to live according to the laws of reality in a way that brings infinite happiness, perfect relationships, power to create anything that is creatable, knowledge of all things, etc.
B) In the second example, this being makes reality according to "whatever feels good", because there are no laws of reality. There is only this being that makes reality whatever it feels like. The only reality is this being's desires.
A) The first being is God because all things in existence obey this being, because of its perfect understanding of reality and how to live in reality in a way that is perfectly fulfilling. This being creates humans, gives them free will, and allows them the opportunity to learn what he knows, so they can learn to live with the same happiness that this being has. If they choose to ignore this God, they suffer not because this God willed it so, but because they refuse to follow the laws of reality. God is saying, "Look, here is how you live to enjoy existence to the fullest extent. If you choose to ignore this, you aren't going to be as happy. I want you to be happy, but you can't be truly happy unless you choose it for yourself. This is why I gave you free will, because if I take away your free will, you can't really be happy because I am forcing you."
B) The second being is God because it wanted to be and everything that worships this God does so because he said so. There is no free will. Everything exists because he willed it to be that way, and he can change it at any time. This means this God created evil, the devil, war, etc. It must be this way, because if he truly hated evil and war, then he would just will them out of existence. To obey this being is meaningless because this God willed it that way at the moment of creation. To disobey is meaningless, because this God willed it that way. Our very existence as human beings is nothing more than a representation of this being's whims.
A) The first being is the God I believe in, and the God that can allow free will in human beings. This is a God that finds joy in teaching us how to be perfectly happy.
B) I believe this second being is the God that Tom and others are referring to. I don't believe this kind of God can exist. If such a God did exist, choosing to disagree with him means nothing, because he made me disagree with him. I agree with Tom that this kind of God prevents free will. This God can't find joy in teaching us how to be happy. There is no teaching. Such a God would just put ideas into our heads through sheer willpower, and our thoughts are not our own. We are extensions of this God's mind. We are its imaginations.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
1) Incomprehensible phenomena exist. 2) People assume the existence of gods who cause the incomprehensible phenomena. 3) People want their gods to be stronger than someone else's god. Pretty quickly, we get the concept of kings of gods. 4) Not long after that, we get the concept of an omnipotent god. 5) Not too long after that, we invent omnipotent gods who love us and want us to be happy. 6) For some reason, it takes a while for people to notice that despite the hypothesized existence of omnipotent beings who want us to be happy, most of us are not perfectly happy. We begin coming up with excuses. 7) Oddly, the first excuse is that it's our fault, and that these omnipotent gods only reluctantly permit our unhappiness. This is a logical carryover from the pre-omnipotent days, but doesn't make much sense. 8) The next popular excuse is that we only appear unhappy for some finite span, and that this will all pay off as part of some longer-range plan that leads to infinite happiness. A frequent corollary is that we're simply not smart enough to understand the complexities of this plan, and that even the apparent deaths of innocent babies serve some greater good. 10) Some people decide that, hey, a truly omnipotent God doesn't make sense, so they say, "Hey, God exists and He's doing what He can for us, but what He can do isn't all that much."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quotable and completely ahistorical, relying on Frazerian evolutionary assumptions about religion which haven't been taken seriously in the academy in decades, but hey.
Posts: 1595 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I'ld imagine we would nuke heaven. For god to exist he must be interacterable, and if he is interacterable then he is killable. God is a jealous, petty, genocidal, narrowminded, ignorant, bigoted, racist, thug and should be dispatched with as soon as possible.
IP: Logged |
posted
For example, I interact with TomDavidson all the time. There are times when I want to hit him with a banana creme pie.
The media over which I am able to interact with him-- the only one available to me-- is incapable of carrying a wrath-inspired banana creme pie.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Quotable and completely ahistorical, relying on Frazerian evolutionary assumptions about religion which haven't been taken seriously in the academy in decades, but hey.
There's an academy for made-up crap? Or do you mean the Academy? In which case I have to admit that I haven't really cared since The English Patient.
---------
I just realized why Blayne is discomfited by that slowly increasing population counter. Every time that creeps upward, it represents an increase in the number of killable people.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:For god to exist he must be interacterable, and if he is interacterable then he is killable.
No. Interactable does not imply killable.
It kinda does, there is for example, an angel described as taking 500 years to walk across, this would imply a size larger than our sun. Such beings cannot exist in our universe with our laws, as such for them to exist, they must conform to our laws and if they do then they are by definition interactable and thus killable.
And especially if god cannot secure all of us an afterlife then we should take it with force.
quote: I just realized why Blayne is discomfited by that slowly increasing population counter. Every time that creeps upward, it represents an increase in the number of killable people.
It's a hard job but someone's gotta do it.
IP: Logged |
quote:It kinda does, there is for example, an angel described as taking 500 years to walk across, this would imply a size larger than our sun. Such beings cannot exist in our universe with our laws, as such for them to exist, they must conform to our laws and if they do then they are by definition interactable and thus killable.
You engage in the fallacy non-sequitur, that-does-not-follow, which disguises the further fallacy of begging the question. First you assert that something cannot exist under some particular set of laws, and that, if they do exist, they must follow those laws. That doesn't follow. Then you assert that if they follow those laws, they are by definition interactable, which perhaps is true, "and thus [therefore] killable"; but whether interactableness implies killableness was the very question in dispute. In other words you have done nothing more than to re-assert that interactability means killability, with the assertion obscured by an irrelevant example contaiing a further fallacy. You did nothing to engage with Scott R's example of a form of interaction that does not imply killability, although it would not have been that hard to shoot it down. In short, your argument is nonsense and babble from one end to the other.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Zotto!: Quotable and completely ahistorical, relying on Frazerian evolutionary assumptions about religion which haven't been taken seriously in the academy in decades, but hey.
"in the academy?"
Knowing you, I really, really have to know what this academy is.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: THE EVOLUTION OF GOD:
1) Incomprehensible phenomena exist. 2) People assume the existence of gods who cause the incomprehensible phenomena. 3) People want their gods to be stronger than someone else's god. Pretty quickly, we get the concept of kings of gods. 4) Not long after that, we get the concept of an omnipotent god. 5) Not too long after that, we invent omnipotent gods who love us and want us to be happy. 6) For some reason, it takes a while for people to notice that despite the hypothesized existence of omnipotent beings who want us to be happy, most of us are not perfectly happy. We begin coming up with excuses. 7) Oddly, the first excuse is that it's our fault, and that these omnipotent gods only reluctantly permit our unhappiness. This is a logical carryover from the pre-omnipotent days, but doesn't make much sense. 8) The next popular excuse is that we only appear unhappy for some finite span, and that this will all pay off as part of some longer-range plan that leads to infinite happiness. A frequent corollary is that we're simply not smart enough to understand the complexities of this plan, and that even the apparent deaths of innocent babies serve some greater good. 10) Some people decide that, hey, a truly omnipotent God doesn't make sense, so they say, "Hey, God exists and He's doing what He can for us, but what He can do isn't all that much."
Your premise is based on the assumption that the only reason to believe in God is to explain the unexplainable. It disregards personal experiences with a higher power as an alternate reason to believe. My experiences are undeniable to me, but patently unprovable to anyone else. Experience by nature cannot be proven. It can be shared so that others can test for themselves to gain experience for themselves. This is why I disagree with people who say you have to believe their spiritual beliefs just because they say so.
But then again, in my experience, the people who insist that others agree with them, or else, are the ones who believe because they are "supposed to", instead of believing due to personal experiences. People who believe based on experience let others learn life through their own experiences, without shaming them. Fanaticism and self righteousness stem from underlying insecurity and blind obedience.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Marlozhan: [QUOTE]Originally posted by TomDavidson: [qb] THE EVOLUTION OF GOD:
1) Incomprehensible phenomena exist. 2) People assume the existence of gods who cause the incomprehensible phenomena. 3) People want their gods to be stronger than someone else's god. Pretty quickly, we get the concept of kings of gods. 4) Not long after that, we get the concept of an omnipotent god. 5) Not too long after that, we invent omnipotent gods who love us and want us to be happy. 6) For some reason, it takes a while for people to notice that despite the hypothesized existence of omnipotent beings who want us to be happy, most of us are not perfectly happy. We begin coming up with excuses. 7) Oddly, the first excuse is that it's our fault, and that these omnipotent gods only reluctantly permit our unhappiness. This is a logical carryover from the pre-omnipotent days, but doesn't make much sense. 8) The next popular excuse is that we only appear unhappy for some finite span, and that this will all pay off as part of some longer-range plan that leads to infinite happiness. A frequent corollary is that we're simply not smart enough to understand the complexities of this plan, and that even the apparent deaths of innocent babies serve some greater good. 10) Some people decide that, hey, a truly omnipotent God doesn't make sense, so they say, "Hey, God exists and He's doing what He can for us, but what He can do isn't all that much."
10) Are there such things as incomprehensible phenomena -- or just an incomprehensible phenomenon? After all, if you can discern one incomprehensible thing from another one, then you've comprehended something about them, haven't you?
9) The notion of something's existing at all, but particularly as distinct from a 'perceiver', is itself another facet of a nascent comprehension.
8) The typically sterile debate concerning the perplexities of defining the indefinite. The fascination with the resultant paradoxes (the imputation of cause)
7) The merciless tyranny of materiality and the obfuscation of the real power of Kings. Generalized groaning from the infinitely painful, but otherwise very finite pains of the torture chambers etc.
6) The merciless tyranny of the Ideal and the obfuscation of the real power of Leaders. Generalized moaning from the definitely painful but otherwise very indefinite pain of hearing the screams of others in the torture chambers...
5) The Computer
4) The Network
3) The Reality of the Virtual
2) The digitization of the generalized screaming of everyone for everyone else.
quote:You did nothing to engage with Scott R's example of a form of interaction that does not imply killability, although it would not have been that hard to shoot it down.
It was designed that way. Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:It kinda does, there is for example, an angel described as taking 500 years to walk across, this would imply a size larger than our sun. Such beings cannot exist in our universe with our laws, as such for them to exist, they must conform to our laws and if they do then they are by definition interactable and thus killable.
You engage in the fallacy non-sequitur, that-does-not-follow, which disguises the further fallacy of begging the question. First you assert that something cannot exist under some particular set of laws, and that, if they do exist, they must follow those laws. That doesn't follow. Then you assert that if they follow those laws, they are by definition interactable, which perhaps is true, "and thus [therefore] killable"; but whether interactableness implies killableness was the very question in dispute. In other words you have done nothing more than to re-assert that interactability means killability, with the assertion obscured by an irrelevant example contaiing a further fallacy. You did nothing to engage with Scott R's example of a form of interaction that does not imply killability, although it would not have been that hard to shoot it down. In short, your argument is nonsense and babble from one end to the other.
Not at all, I was observing that if we took the mythology at face value it is clear that we only have two options, either write it off as uninteractable such as the "aether" was in the days of old or have to rationalize it to fit with the rules of our universe.
If it cannot interact with our universe, if the rules it consists of are incompatible with ours, then there's nothing. We cannot interact with it and it cannot interact with us.
But if we can interact with it, then it can interact with us, and if it can interact then by definition it must follow physical laws and if it follows physical laws then by definition it is also understandable and if we can understand it then we can eventually kill it. Clearly I was in error to ommit this crucial step but it should make my point clear.
IP: Logged |
quote:But if we can interact with it, then it can interact with us, and if it can interact then by definition it must follow physical laws and if it follows physical laws then by definition it is also understandable and if we can understand it then we can eventually kill it.
I'm impressed. Every single one of those does not actually logically follow.
In other words: it is not necessarily true that anything we can interact with can interact with us. It is not necessarily true that anything which can interact must follow some physical law. It is not necessarily true that everything which follows physical law is understandable. And it is not necessarily true that everything we can understand can be killed.
I mean, seriously, every single step of that argument is completely false. It's sort of amazing.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:But if we can interact with it, then it can interact with us, and if it can interact then by definition it must follow physical laws and if it follows physical laws then by definition it is also understandable and if we can understand it then we can eventually kill it.
What do you mean "physical laws?"
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is not necessarily true that anything we can interact with can interact with us.
I think it is, actually; this is the meaning of 'interact'. If the word had been 'affect', I would agree; we can affect any number of things that can't affect us.
quote:It is not necessarily true that anything which can interact must follow some physical law.
Well. It depends on what you mean by physical law, I think. Nothing can be more random than complete entropy; and total randomness is still describable by mathematical laws. If it has any order to it, then again that order must follow some law - that's what order means. Of course there's no rule saying that the laws have to be the ones we know currently, or even the same kind of laws.
quote:It is not necessarily true that everything which follows physical law is understandable.
Indeed, most people don't even understand quantum mechanics. Physical law can be arbitrarily complicated, although the ones we know about are relatively simple. And humans are only so bright; at some point the brain just can't hold the information anymore and we can no longer understand the complexity. The point is clearer if you consider chimpanzees: The brightest chimpanzees are perhaps as smart (though not as verbal) as the most retarded humans (disregarding coma patients and such); but to say that because electrons follow physical law, a chimpanzee can eventually understand it, is clearly not correct.
quote:And it is not necessarily true that everything we can understand can be killed.
Yep. We understand evolution pretty well, but let's see you kill it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is not necessarily true that everything which follows physical law is understandable. Indeed, most people don't even understand quantum mechanics.
Indeed, most people don't even understand themselves.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
'understand' in the scientific sense, to use an example in the book Children of the Mind we at first couldn't understand the desclocoda, but we could, through our understand of evolution study it and gain an understanding from which we could interact with it and then eliminate it as a threat. Throughout this entire process it understood us and interacted with us on a biological level. Even if say as a virus it had no effect on humans at all (hypothetically) it would still be interacting with us on some level.
God's existence according to most theology is by definition indescribable by science, empiricalism or rationalism. It is "above" the laws, interpretations that say "even god follows the laws" then leave open the possibility to scrutiny and study.
You are left with two options either you have god who can be studied and understood, in which case it is inevitable he can be annihilated through superior firepower (preferably nuclear tipped anti ship missiles) or he cannot be studied and understood and in which case by definition he cannot be interacted with, and he cannot interact with us.
IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne: Why is it we either can understand God completely given enough time, or else we can comprehend nothing?
A God who is omnipotent by definition could control what you are permitted to know about them. You couldn't steal data or observations from them.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is not necessarily true that anything we can interact with can interact with us.
I think this depends a great deal on how you define interact. One definition I found was
quote:To act reciprocally, to act on each other....
By that definition, it is necessarily try that anything we can interact with can interact with us.
A second definition I found was
quote:Act in such a way as to have an effect on another.
By this definition, its not clear. For physical interactions, Newton's 3rd law would still dictate both things being capable of interacting with each other. But that isn't true for all types of the interactions, such as communications for example. Shakespeare is able to communicate with me through his plays and poems but I am incapable of communicating with Shakespeare. He is able to influence my mental state. I can not influence his.
quote:Indeed, most people don't even understand quantum mechanics. Physical law can be arbitrarily complicated, although the ones we know about are relatively simple.
Feynman said "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't". I agree with him. No one actually understands quantum mechanics well enough to use the theory to predict more than the very simplest cases. Its one of the great frustrations of modern chemistry. We are all completely convinced that Schrodinger's wave equation accurately describes the behavior of complex chemical process but its simply too difficult to solve for it to be useful for understanding most chemical problems.
quote:You are left with two options either you have god who can be studied and understood, in which case it is inevitable he can be annihilated through superior firepower.
This simply does not follow. There are far more than two options. There can be a God who can be studied but never fully understood. There can be a God that can be understood but not annihilated. There can be a God that can be interacted with but never scientifically studied.
Finally, you keep saying that if it can be understood, it can be killed. That's simply not true. For example, energy can be studied and understood but not destroyed. Ideas can be studied and understood but not destroyed.
[ November 23, 2011, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
You are left with two options either you have god who can be studied and understood, in which case it is inevitable he can be annihilated through superior firepower (preferably nuclear tipped anti ship missiles) or he cannot be studied and understood and in which case by definition he cannot be interacted with, and he cannot interact with us.
I would have to agree with Blayne on this, except in the weapon and the historical vicinity.
God (as many have already said) was annihilated by something like scientific thinking a long time ago. The "god" invoked here is merely a token, like a playing card, a role-playing game.
Now, this doesn't preclude religious behaviour...a sort of reflex activity....but there's not much left to kill except a simulacrum.
quote:either you have god who can be studied and understood, in which case it is inevitable he can be annihilated through superior firepower
I still don't follow this logic, Blayne. Why do you believe that it's possible to destroy whatever can be understood?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Two hours after the blast that annihilated God the crew receives a well-deserved break from collecting the scattered endless debris.
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'd believe and accept God's will. He's God, after all, and I would rather not end up in Hell for the rest of eternity simply because I disagreed with him on something like abortion or homosexuality. Honestly, if God came to me and said, "no more straight sex for you", I'd stop having sex. It would be the same if I was gay.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
