If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out...

[DC97]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

Who else thinks that there might be even higher beings in all of existence?

Anyone read "The Black Tattoo"? It's a teen book yes, but one of it's main points is making the reader think that God and Satan, or in the book "Godfrey" and "Ebisu Eller-Kong Hacha' Fravashi" are all experiments of other beings. The book basically states that God, creation, universes and everything else is one experiment after the other, after the other. In much simpler terms, the universe we know was created by God, God was created by a higher being who also created other things, and that being was created by another being, etc. etc.

Just food for thought.

 

[iKotomi]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

Where did the hostility come from?

I never posited that my belief system, specifically that which would define God as "logical", was the only possible way ever that he could exist and that I could not be wrong. Neither did I say that I can prove or disprove God, but merely explained that, in my mind, he would have to be logical in order to be extant to other human beings.

Edit: To clarify further, the above post, which you seem to have vehemently strawmanned into something of a different nature, was no more than speculation. I was not applying proven logic or empirical evidence to my claim, merely musing aloud in a message board. I haven't the slightest idea where you got the idea that I claimed I could prove or disprove God's existence, nor that I thought my statement was ironclad. I'd prefer if you would discontinue projecting ideas on me that I do not claim to hold.

Sorry. At least where I come from, when you present an idea in contradiction to someone else's argument, it is almost always to develop a counter argument. Whatever the case, your post really verified my claim, that your argument doesn't have any real deliberative value. Take it for what you mean, in any real discussion, which this thread clearly isn't, it's a totally useless statement. I wasn't merely complaining that your statement wasn't ironclad, I was complaining that absolutely nothing you said had any logical reason to be believed whatsoever. When that happens, you just start sounding like KingAce who seems like everything he knows in life, he learned from fortune cookies and video game dialogue (Sorry just needed to call this out. You will always forever be in my heart a fake Madnis impersonator).

Don't take it too seriously, I don't believe that it is necessary for things to be logical anyways, I just found it ironic that you had a statement about logic that wasn't logical and responded in a pedantic way (just finished an all-nighter writing an extensive paper on Rousseau).

Actually I think the speed of light is considered a constant and absolute regardless of anything. Even through a medium, the speed of light is constant, even though it appears slower, because it's bouncing around particles (or more precisely, being absorbed and emitted again over and over)

Speed of light is believed to be constant because we have found no evidence to suggest otherwise. Furthermore, we have extensive theory that describes damn well what goes on if we assume light to have a constant speed, at least in pretty much every framework that we can test it in (I'm not exactly a physics major, so I can't say exactly in what way the inconsistency between relativity and quantum mechanics affects this).

These observations allow us to draw a conclusion that the speed of light is very very likely to be constant, and it is very useful to assume that the statement is true, at least for all purposes we can devise. However, we can not actually prove that the speed of light in any framework is always constant is a true statement, because that is not a testable hypothesis.

 

[Felix007]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

Sorry. At least where I come from, when you present an idea in contradiction to someone else's argument, it is almost always to develop a counter argument. Whatever the case, your post really verified my claim, that your argument doesn't have any real deliberative value. Take it for what you mean, in any real discussion, which this thread clearly isn't, it's a totally useless statement. I wasn't merely complaining that your statement wasn't ironclad, I was complaining that absolutely nothing you said had any logical reason to be believed whatsoever. When that happens, you just start sounding like KingAce who seems like everything he knows in life, he learned from fortune cookies and video game dialogue (Sorry just needed to call this out. You will always forever be in my heart a fake Madnis impersonator).

Don't take it too seriously, I don't believe that it is necessary for things to be logical anyways, I just found it ironic that you had a statement about logic that wasn't logical and responded in a pedantic way (just finished an all-nighter writing an extensive paper on Rousseau).

Then I may have had my message come across in the wrong fashion, without a disclaimer as to why I said what I said. I had no intentions to come off as all knowing, and I thought that would be clear when my message went into no detail to validate my thoughts, which is in contrast to other posts I have made in this thread. It truly was meant to be musing aloud, nothing more.

My apologies if I came off as pedantic or smug after any fashion; it was not my intention.

Who else thinks that there might be even higher beings in all of existence?

Anyone read "The Black Tattoo"? It's a teen book yes, but one of it's main points is making the reader think that God and Satan, or in the book "Godfrey" and "Ebisu Eller-Kong Hacha' Fravashi" are all experiments of other beings. The book basically states that God, creation, universes and everything else is one experiment after the other, after the other. In much simpler terms, the universe we know was created by God, God was created by a higher being who also created other things, and that being was created by another being, etc. etc.

Just food for thought.

While it's certainly an interesting idea, it is by no means new. There has been the concept of (and problems associated with) infinite regression for quite some time.

 

[The-Instigator]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

I'd buy myself a lifetime supply of sake in order to have weekend drinking competitions :D.


Fix'd ^^

 

[KoshTheKoala]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

I'd win over Sophitia from Rothion, buy Voldo ten thousand pairs of designer clothes that covers EVERYTHING, and buy Yoshimutsu and myself a lifetime supply of sake in order to have weekend drinking competitions :D.

I'm guessing you didn't read the rest of the thread.

 

[JetSetDizzy]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

Actually, should he be real, I believe God must be logical by definition to exist. As in, he cannot create two sided triangles, pit his omnipotence against his omniscience, create an object he could not move, etc. Otherwise, by his very definition, he would not exist.

I agree on that 100%. God is restricted by his own nature and cannot contradict it. Nothing devoid of logic could exist. Also yeah I heard about the Pope thing. I dont get why Catholics even have the Pope, there is no biblical basis for it whatsoever, and its like one guy just made up the position to create a seat of power for himself. I don't understand how you say that something could have no cause, wouldn't that defy logic?

 

[Felix007]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

I agree on that 100%. God is restricted by his own nature and cannot contradict it. Nothing devoid of logic could exist. Also yeah I heard about the Pope thing. I dont get why Catholics even have the Pope, there is no biblical basis for it whatsoever, and its like one guy just made up the position to create a seat of power for himself. I don't understand how you say that something could have no cause, wouldn't that defy logic?

As far as we know, it does not defy logic, but merely shows that we don't currently have a solid understanding of the concepts of self causality, or the ability for the object to come into existence without a prior action behind it. See the Casimir Effect for the idea of something that is uncaused (vacuum energy), based in part on the planck constant.

The Pope is intended to act as an intecessory, much as the Catholics believe that Saints have the ability to send intecessory prayers. The title also functioned as a political power in the fourth century and onward. From Wikipedia, Matt. 16:18-19, John 21:15-17, Luke 12:41, and a few others are interpreted by the Catholic church as the need for a "steward" of the faith, hence the position and power of the Pope today.

(Disclaimer: Considering I am not Catholic, the above may not be completely accurate, but simply the best interpretation I was able to discern).

 

[Hot Rod Dave]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

HOLY shit thats a lot of fancy book learnin words

no pun intended....i think youre making up bullshit............lol

 

[KoshTheKoala]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

I agree on that 100%. God is restricted by his own nature and cannot contradict it. Nothing devoid of logic could exist. Also yeah I heard about the Pope thing. I dont get why Catholics even have the Pope, there is no biblical basis for it whatsoever, and its like one guy just made up the position to create a seat of power for himself. I don't understand how you say that something could have no cause, wouldn't that defy logic?

So a god must be logical, yet your god always existed, he has no creator. Your god exists outside of the natural universe, which makes up absolutely everything we can describe or know (besides, possibly, gods, who exist outside of the universe... circular logic). How is that logical?

 

[JetSetDizzy]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

It is not illogical to exist outside of the natural universe because it is not self contridicting.

 

[Felix007]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

HOLY shit thats a lot of fancy book learnin words

no pun intended....i think youre making up bullshit............lol

I think you're kidding, but it's all listed in the link provided as a fairly solid explanation of what I'm talking about. If not, the dictionary is always your friend.

It is not illogical to exist outside of the natural universe because it is not self contridicting.

You're assuming there are no natural laws for "outside" the Universe, or that the outside of the Universe even exists. Then you make up rules (or lack thereof) for this realm, and declare it non-contradicting. In the words of Richard Dawkins, "That's just too easy, isn't it?".

If that is the case, how can we tell the difference between this supernatural realm and the nonexistent?

 

[Codemaster92163]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

Ok well im going to ask a question that one of you probably has the answer too. If there technically was no outside of the universe, then what could the universe possibly be expanding further into? There must be some sort of spacy thing that allows the universe to expand at the rate it is, so I wouldn't doubt that there is in fact an outside of the universe. Im only in 11th grade so forgive me for not knowing the answer to this.

 

[iKotomi]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

The "universe" is really just the total area with stuff in it. Most of the universe is empty space. Outside of the universe, there is nothing, so the stuff in the universe can spread out into the nothing around it.

 

[Gegliosch]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

I didn't know the universe was expanding, is that a fact? I always thought of it as the available space and that only the matter/energy/whatever inside of it moved.
If there is an outside of the universe, there must be some kind of border to it. However, if there is no outside, I can only imagine that it's kind of like a circle and that you ended up at your starting position if you moved forever in the same direction. Don't take this example too seriously, I just don't know what to compare it to :D

I obviously don't know anything about physics, this is just what I can imagine myself.

edit:

The "universe" is really just the total area with stuff in it. Most of the universe is empty space. Outside of the universe, there is nothing, so the stuff in the universe can spread out into the nothing around it.

Do you make a difference between empty space and nothing? This sounds like you're saying that the empty space spreads into the nothing around it.

 

[Hot Rod Dave]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

I think you're kidding, but it's all listed in the link provided as a fairly solid explanation of what I'm talking about. If not, the dictionary is always your friend.

yeah Im kidding. Actually I found the casmir effect pretty interesting. I had to read it a few times to understand a fraction of it....but pretty cool.

 

[Manta]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

Lets say you do find proof that someone or something created the universe.

Good for you, you did the unthinkable, something no scientist has done yet.

Now show me that it wasn't Allah, or Yahweh or any of the other of thousands of Gods humanity has believed over the years?

For that, there's not a shred of evidence that would suggest any scientific link or correlation, since of course ~ God is supernatural, right? Outside science? I'd like to see someone's non-subjective proof that they've not been praying to the wrong god this whole time ~ there simply is none =)


-Manta-

 

[iKotomi]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

I didn't know the universe was expanding, is that a fact? I always thought of it as the available space and that only the matter/energy/whatever inside of it moved.
If there is an outside of the universe, there must be some kind of border to it. However, if there is no outside, I can only imagine that it's kind of like a circle and that you ended up at your starting position if you moved forever in the same direction. Don't take this example too seriously, I just don't know what to compare it to :D

I obviously don't know anything about physics, this is just what I can imagine myself.

The universe is expanding. As I said earlier, its mostly empty space, but what's happening is the empty space between actual matter (stars, planets, etc.) is increasing uniformly. Imagine it like a balloon, it is mostly empty, but there a lot of gas particles that push out towards the balloon. The universe is expanding similarly to the way a balloon gets bigger. This isn't exactly the best example because it only describes the shape, the universe is expanding because of Newton's first law, inertia where the particles are actually getting further apart from each other, while a balloon expands because the increase in the amount of gas particles increases the air pressure on the surface of the balloon and the particles are actually closer to each other. The main idea is, the area that has stuff inside it, as opposed to nothing, is increasing.



*edit* Pretty much, it is natural for the universe to expand, since the stars all have velocity, and will tend to move out in the direction they are moving. However, it is also natural for it to contract, since the stars have gravity. What was surprising was that the force of gravity was not enough to keep the universe from contracting, since even the smallest force over a long period of time will eventually cause large objects to decelerate.

Do you make a difference between empty space and nothing? This sounds like you're saying that the empty space spreads into the nothing around it.

No, there is no difference between empty space and nothing in my use of it. As I said above, what's happening is that the total amount of area that contains actual matter is expanding into an area that previously had nothing. The border is imaginary, arbitrarily drawn to contain all the matter in the universe.

 

[Hudathan]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

Too many pages, would just like to say that religion, especially the idea of God in the Christian sense, is not convincing. Where else in life can you get away with not having evidence to back up an idea? If I started a new religion today and told people to just have faith in my teachings I would get no where. People just don't like to change and that's why religion is still important to people.

 

[KoshTheKoala]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

If I started a new religion today and told people to just have faith in my teachings I would get no where.

That's where you're wrong.

"I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is!" - L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology

 

[KingAce]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

As far as we know, it does not defy logic, but merely shows that we don't currently have a solid understanding of the concepts of self causality, or the ability for the object to come into existence without a prior action behind it. See the Casimir Effect for the idea of something that is uncaused (vacuum energy), based in part on the planck constant.

The Pope is intended to act as an intecessory, much as the Catholics believe that Saints have the ability to send intecessory prayers. The title also functioned as a political power in the fourth century and onward. From Wikipedia, Matt. 16:18-19, John 21:15-17, Luke 12:41, and a few others are interpreted by the Catholic church as the need for a "steward" of the faith, hence the position and power of the Pope today.

(Disclaimer: Considering I am not Catholic, the above may not be completely accurate, but simply the best interpretation I was able to discern).

As far as my understanding goes...we mostly argue about concepts of God or his attributes. And for the most part all known and popular concepts of God or the idea of God are flawed.