Not even Time(age),Space,Matter and other dimensions could ever exist with out a source or a CREATOR

reply to post by angel of lightangelo


I'll explain it to you (well not really).
You see, something must have been eternal for us to exist.
Nothing can be eternal unless that something is God.
Therefore God exists.

No, I am not joking lol - that's the whole theory in a nut shell (key word "nut"). That's as far as the logic bus goes. You'll have to catch a train from there.

Originally posted by TruthParadox
reply to post by angel of lightangelo

 

I'll explain it to you (well not really).
You see, something must have been eternal for us to exist.
Nothing can be eternal unless that something is God.
Therefore God exists.

No, I am not joking lol - that's the whole theory in a nut shell (key word "nut"). That's as far as the logic bus goes. You'll have to catch a train from there.

Man have blind can you be. Is that what denial dose to people.

God is just a name..... GOD. God is just the name of the source have hard is that to get in to your head.

Originally posted by spy66
Man have blind can you be. Is that what denial dose to people.

"how" blind can I be?
Well technically, I'm legally blind!
Ba dum tisch! (that's the drums incase you couldn't tell )

Originally posted by spy66
God is just a name..... GOD. God is just the name of the source have hard is that to get in to your head.

So then you wouldn't mind me calling this source "pink unicorns"?
So does that mean that pink unicorns exist?
Answer me that.
It's not 'just a name'. Are you referring to the Jewish God or some form of Deism?
When we see the word "God" (capital 'G'), we assume you mean the God of the Old and New Testament...

Originally posted by TruthParadox

It's not 'just a name'. Are you referring to the Jewish God or some form of Deism?
When we see the word "God" (capital 'G'), we assume you mean the God of the Old and New Testament...

Perhaps if you read the OP instead of jumping to conclusions and trying to ridicule the OP you would not look so completely silly in your assumptions. The inadequacies in this case apply to you by not intergrating the Definition of the Term God the OP uses to help explain the premise of his opinion in the OP. Please try and keep up. It is realy not that difficult is it.

Well God is Eternal and Infinite. That is the definition of our God. God is the name we have given the source of Infinity and Eternity. "God is the Eternal and Infinite source"
Now God is just the name we have given the source. Remember that

post by spy66

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
reply to post by spy66

 

Because I want to know how god just shows up in your equation. If it bothers you that I am asking. Anyone else that likes your idea can tell me. I am not trying to be a jerk for fun. I just like the actual question that I ask addressed. If you do not have the conviction to make sense of what you say, try not to say so much.

God was always there. Because he is Eternal and Infinite. HE has no beginning and no end. To be able to create the Eternal and Infinite must exist.

If Infinity or Eternal dident exist Neither would God.

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Originally posted by spy66
Man have blind can you be. Is that what denial dose to people.

"how" blind can I be?
Well technically, I'm legally blind!
Ba dum tisch! (that's the drums incase you couldn't tell

)

Originally posted by spy66
God is just a name..... GOD. God is just the name of the source have hard is that to get in to your head.

So then you wouldn't mind me calling this source "pink unicorns"?
So does that mean that pink unicorns exist?
Answer me that.
It's not 'just a name'. Are you referring to the Jewish God or some form of Deism?
When we see the word "God" (capital 'G'), we assume you mean the God of the Old and New Testament...

Call it what you like if you have to.


[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by atlasastro
Perhaps if you read the OP instead of jumping to conclusions and trying to ridicule the OP you would not look so completely silly in your assumptions.

Originally posted by atlasastro
The inadequacies in this case apply to you by not intergrating the Definition of the Term God the OP uses to help explain the premise of his opinion in the OP. Please try and keep up. It is realy not that difficult is it.

I heard him say that God is eternal and infinite. That much is obvious.
In what way am I not keeping up?
If it is "just a name" he attaches to the "source", then I could call that source "pink unicorns" and claim that pink unicorns exist - but am I really claiming that pink unicorns exist? Of course not - I'm claiming that something is infinite and that I call that pink unicorns.
Similarly, did the OP explain that the Jewish God exists?
No more than pink unicorns (the pink unicorns I'm referring to are eternal and infinite in case you didn't know).
You missed my entire point - that being that HIS entire point requires a MASSIVE assumption.
Congratulations .



[edit on 21-12-2008 by TruthParadox]

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Originally posted by atlasastro
Perhaps if you read the OP instead of jumping to conclusions and trying to ridicule the OP you would not look so completely silly in your assumptions.

Originally posted by atlasastro
The inadequacies in this case apply to you by not intergrating the Definition of the Term God the OP uses to help explain the premise of his opinion in the OP. Please try and keep up. It is realy not that difficult is it.

I heard him say that God is eternal and infinite. That much is obvious.
In what way am I not keeping up?
If it is "just a name" he attaches to the "source", then I could call that source "pink unicorns" and claim that pink unicorns exist - but am I really claiming that pink unicorns exist? Of course not - I'm claiming that something is infinite and that I call that pink unicorns.
Similarly, did the OP explain that the Jewish God exists?
No more than pink unicorns (the pink unicorns I'm referring to are eternal and infinite in case you didn't know).
You missed my entire point - that being that HIS entire point requires a MASSIVE assumption.
Congratulations

.



[edit on 21-12-2008 by TruthParadox]

This is just to much for you. Why dont you go and spread you knowledge somewhere it is needed.

reply to post by spy66


So that's it is it? You're just going to send off people who disagree with your speculation of things that you can't possibly know?

You invited people like him and myself into a discussion by starting the thread.

Originally posted by TruthParadox

I heard him say that God is eternal and infinite. That much is obvious.

You are hearing voices from text on a screen. Umm, ok.

In what way am I not keeping up?

Why infer that his term of God is the same one of christian or jewish doctrine and dogma?

If it is "just a name" he attaches to the "source", then I could call that source "pink unicorns" and claim that pink unicorns exist - but am I really claiming that pink unicorns exist? Of course not - I'm claiming that something is infinite and that I call that pink unicorns.

Of course you can, But this is not your thread is it, the OP clearly states what he believes the Source is and what its nature is. If you would like to put forth why it is more likely a pink unicorn than do so.

Similarly, did the OP explain that the Jewish God exists?

So now he need to explain another belief too? Why does he, to satisfy you?

No more than pink unicorns (the pink unicorns I'm referring to are eternal and infinite in case you didn't know).
You missed my entire point - that being that HIS entire point requires a MASSIVE assumption.

How is it an assumption that something had to exist before the universe. If science tells us that the universe was the result of an event from a singularity?
There are two options. The universe was already here, eternal and infinite or it was created. Science is pointing towards creation via the sngularity.The OP chooses this view of creation. He then looks at the Source of that creation and expresses his opinion that we view that source as God. And that he believe that this source must be infinite and eternal- this too is a logical assumption otherwise we have to move to another cause of the original cause and a cause for that and so on and so forth. Its quite easy to understand. You then introduce your assumption that it is the christian view, or jewish view. The OP makes no reference to these. So instead of argueing his assumptions, you introduce your own?
BTW- are assumptions involved in dscussion fundamentally wrong? Do we not observe other MASSIVE assumptions when science expresses opinions on the Big Bang and Abiogenesis etc.
Did you know that Quantum and Astrophyscists make the assumption that at the earliest time interval after the Big Bang all laws must break down. American Astrophysicist Richard Gott assumes that at these infintesimal periods of time(that we know absolutely nothing about) just after the Big Bang that there is an infinite loss of information that makes absolutely anything possible, including the potential for the creation of multiple universes. So here we have an example of assumptions that non- theist would no doubt accept, in this case we have non-theists replacing the God of the Gaps with Chance of the Gaps via the theory of Random fluctuations within the primeval radiation field and infinite Chance.

It is funny that you mention Pink Unicorns as this directly relates to a philosophical question relating to Quantum Mechanics and how we as observers give reality to quantum entities. We know that on a quantum level that particles can be both a wave and a particle with the potential for many outcomes until observed. In the Heinsbergs uncertainty principle(where in discerning the position of an entity we lose all information on momentum) we can find arguements that causality is hidden from the observer as information is lost due to those who are defining the entity via observation. So assumptions are made. Because, importantly, information on cause is lost. So assumptions are parr for the course in this arguement, especially ones about sources, forces and gods, pink unicorns, multiverses, multi gods.........it keeps going.

Thanks for the congrats.

Originally posted by Good Wolf
reply to post by spy66

 

So that's it is it? You're just going to send off people who disagree with your speculation of things that you can't possibly know?

You invited people like him and myself into a discussion by starting the thread.

I agree, you gotta stay the course OP.

Originally posted by spy66

God was always there. Because he is Eternal and Infinite. HE has no beginning and no end. To be able to create the Eternal and Infinite must exist.

If Infinity or Eternal dident exist Neither would God.

You make a good point and Stephen Hawking when reworking his principles to escape the singularity wrote this in a Brief History Of Time when looking at the universe in a quantum state.

The universe could be finite in imaginary time but without boundaries or singularities. When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities. ... Only if we lived in imaginary time would we encounter no singularities.... in real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to space-time and at which the laws of science break down.

The OP states that his Source would in fact transcend these boundaries does he Not? By being Eternal and Infinite the OP's source would be outside of our time, our space and our matter so laws relating to matter, space-time, causality.....in fact everthing would not apply. So in theory the source could be anything we desire, be it as a God, a Source or a pink unicorn. One infinite, eternal with the ability to create.This still complies with doctrine for many religions so, lots of people will be happy....and good for them. LOL.

reply to post by atlasastro


I see you understand what i am trying to say. Thanks

I dont think to many has read and understood my first post on page one.

I dont think to many has taken the time to look at the meaning of Eternal,Infinite or Finite.

I dont think to many could imagine that Infinite has no limits.

I dont think that to many has taken the time to understand that finite is limited by the Infinite.

I dont think that to many understand that Eternal can have two meanings and a start point.

A starting point that can go on for Eternity. But that is limited by the Infinite.

I dont think that to many could imagine that we might have been given Eternal life in the Beginning,and that the Infinite source could easily have taken it away from us. Infinite has no limits it can do anything. Because it is everything.

This is limited by our mind. Because we only understand what works within whats finite.Meaning what has been created.






[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by atlasastro
You are hearing voices from text on a screen. Umm, ok.

Yep, it's a program in windows xp for the hearing impared called narrator.
Try it sometime .

Originally posted by atlasastro
Why infer that his term of God is the same one of christian or jewish doctrine and dogma?

Did I infer?
I was asking what he was referring to when he said "God".
If he's referring to simply "infinite and eternal" as a definition, then that could apply to any number of supposed things. If, however, you're trying to provide evidence of God (capital "G", described in the Bible), then he would give some reason for that connection.
He hasn't.
You see, it's a trick statement - it's like me saying "look at nature, only an infinite being could create that. God is an infinite being. God must have created it".
Only assumptions bind it together.
So you get less ignorant people like myself coming on here and asking about those assumptions, to which we receive the funny but always entertaining Christian silence or (even better) creationist insult.
This is why I do what I do . It's for the lulz.

Originally posted by atlasastro
Of course you can, But this is not your thread is it, the OP clearly states what he believes the Source is and what its nature is. If you would like to put forth why it is more likely a pink unicorn than do so.

Not 'more' likely lol... You missed my point. It's just as likely because you make that assumption to begin with.
If he had been born and raised to believe in eternal and infinite pink unicorns, then this thread would be to prove the existence of pink unicorns.
This proves that the whole bases of his point is an assumption.
The creationist mind works by thinking he/she knows the end and then creating the means. Whats funny is that you don't even seem to notice...

Originally posted by atlasastro
So now he need to explain another belief too? Why does he, to satisfy you?

lol, well when you imply that there's a creator named God, we make the connection of that guy described in the Bible.
He has yet to give a reason why this infinite source would be that guy.
I've said many times that several scientists believe there are parallel universes outside our universe, so why God and not a multiverse?
He gives this source a name and a face, I'm simply saying that it doesn't need any.

Originally posted by atlasastro
How is it an assumption that something had to exist before the universe. If science tells us that the universe was the result of an event from a singularity?

That's not the assumption lol... stop glossing over my words and actually read them. The assumption is that this infinite source would be God and not any number of things.
He says he "calls this source God".
Why?
Why not call it the 'multiverse' which is responsible for an infinite number of parallel universes?
Why not? Because that, of course, goes against the idea of God (of the Bible).

Originally posted by atlasastro
There are two options. The universe was already here, eternal and infinite or it was created. Science is pointing towards creation via the sngularity.The OP chooses this view of creation. He then looks at the Source of that creation and expresses his opinion that we view that source as God. And that he believe that this source must be infinite and eternal- this too is a logical assumption otherwise we have to move to another cause of the original cause and a cause for that and so on and so forth. Its quite easy to understand.

I know it's quite easy to understand.
I wrote the theory two years ago when I was a creationist, though it was better layed out... (I still have most of it typed up on my computer )
My point is that even within that theory there are much better alternatives than "God did it".

Originally posted by atlasastro
You then introduce your assumption that it is the christian view, or jewish view. The OP makes no reference to these. So instead of argueing his assumptions, you introduce your own?

The OP makes no reference to these?
LOL he made a reference to the Jewish God the minute he said the name "God" - because that's what we all picture.
If he didn't want us to make that connection, then he wouldn't have called it "God". He would have simply called it "an infinite source" or "infinity".
This is why I asked if he was a Deist.
We all think he's trying to prove the Jewish God's existence lol.
Even if he had proven that there was an infinite source, he never explains why that source would be "God". And he calls it God because of an assumption based on the Jewish God...
lol... hopefully I won't have to explain this further.

Originally posted by atlasastro
in this case we have non-theists replacing the God of the Gaps with Chance of the Gaps via the theory of Random fluctuations within the primeval radiation field and infinite Chance.

Ahh... But nothing is truly "chance" if there's an infinite source... Right?

Originally posted by atlasastro
Thanks for the congrats.

Sure. But don't expect another freebie .

Originally posted by Good Wolf
So that's it is it? You're just going to send off people who disagree with your speculation of things that you can't possibly know?

You invited people like him and myself into a discussion by starting the thread.

Something must have been eternal for us to exist.
Nothing can be eternal unless that something is God.
Therefore God exists.

There is no more to his theory than that - and he can't logically explain the assumptions that got him there - which is why he can do no more than disagree and send us on our way lol.

This meat is getting stale. I'm going to look for something with more protein.

To deny that a Infinite source dont exist or that it cant do anything.
Is more a limite of mind and thinking then anything. That means you dont understand.

Why cant Infinite work,act or do anything, but Finite can.

What limits could infinite have. If it is everything.

Finite cant be outside of infinity. It must be inside the space of Infinite.





[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by spy66
To deny that a Infinite source dont exist or that it cant do anything.
Is more a limite of mind and thinking then anything. That means you dont understand.

Why cant Infinite work but Finite can.

Our human perception is extremely flawed in such matters.
Something may appear to be infinite to us simply because it's outside our reach, yet it may be bound by an even greater 'power'.
To a two deminsional mind, 3 deminsions may appear infinite.
To a three deminsional mind, 4 deminsions may appear infinite.
You're trying to comprehend something that is far outside your reach.
If something is outside our reach, does it mean it's infinite?
No, it just means we can't comprehend it.
There may be an infinite source and there may not. Either way, there's no reason to call it God - that much is a huge assumption.

Originally posted by TruthParadox
reply to post by angel of lightangelo

 

I'll explain it to you (well not really).
You see, something must have been eternal for us to exist.
Nothing can be eternal unless that something is God.
Therefore God exists.

No, I am not joking lol - that's the whole theory in a nut shell (key word "nut"). That's as far as the logic bus goes. You'll have to catch a train from there.

I can only pray that you are saying this the way I am reading it and that we are at least close to the same page here.

Originally posted by spy66
God was always there. Because he is Eternal and Infinite. HE has no beginning and no end. To be able to create the Eternal and Infinite must exist.

If Infinity or Eternal dident exist Neither would God.

Sigh, again?

OK and all of that is proven true how, when, by whom?

You just added god in because you wanted to. That is it. You have not shown how he got there.

[edit on 21-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]

reply to post by TruthParadox



You just defined the limits of thinking. To understan you cant have limits.