Community > General Religion Chat

Previous 1 2 … 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 … 49 50 Next

Topic: questions that believers are afraid to answer
Eljay Joined Tue 05/08/07 Posts: 2426	Tue 01/08/08 06:39 PM
And you got it. Then you decided to not accept your own premises. Seems irrational to me. I appologize for the phrase "time continuum" - I did not realize it was beyond your comprehension. again Eljay..let me explain why your explaination of space time comtinum was irrational ..because believers say God always existed ..so how many believers in the average church do you believe can grasp that concept of space time continum well enough to explain God's existence in it especially those believers in those biblical days ...so you are going on faith and fairy tales and that is irrational all you are saying is that Dr. Who "the time lord" is God Funches; I explained my response to your post - and my interpretation of your premises. What you have stated does not relate to your OP. If you want to get into what people in the church are capable of comprehending - start anther thread.

funches Joined Sat 12/01/07 Posts: 12948	Tue 01/08/08 06:42 PM
no I don't. But I guess according to you if I call a dog a cat even though it isn't, that would mean I am thinking beyond words... how interesting. it may also mean you need glasses well all your arguments seem to ignore the meanings of words. I guess thats the only way you can convince yourself that your arguments hold water. And now you have resorted to name calling. What is the world coming too. the world must be coming to "short term memory loss" ...because I responded in that way because you called me a name first ...if you can't take it then don't give it ...

Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Tue 01/08/08 06:44 PM
Actually I never called you a name. You were name calling with someone else.

funches Joined Sat 12/01/07 Posts: 12948	Tue 01/08/08 06:53 PM
And you got it. Then you decided to not accept your own premises. Seems irrational to me. I appologize for the phrase "time continuum" - I did not realize it was beyond your comprehension. again Eljay..let me explain why your explaination of space time comtinum was irrational ..because believers say God always existed ..so how many believers in the average church do you believe can grasp that concept of space time continum well enough to explain God's existence in it especially those believers in those biblical days ...so you are going on faith and fairy tales and that is irrational all you are saying is that Dr. Who "the time lord" is God Funches; I explained my response to your post - and my interpretation of your premises. What you have stated does not relate to your OP. If you want to get into what people in the church are capable of comprehending - start anther thread. why? ...when if was you yourself that made it relative to the thread when you rudely made an assumption that I couldn't comprehend the time space concept..like they say in court...you opened the door..so blame yourself not me ...or maybe you can start a thread about space time and let's see how many christians can discuss it ...rationally

iamgeorgiagirl Joined Tue 12/04/07 Posts: 1288	Wed 01/09/08 03:28 PM
Well I thought infinity had no end and to me it's hard to conceive it when it is used in the context of an infinite creator which was what I was talking about. So to be politically correct insert that it is hard for me Cassandra to see that fact especially pertaining to an infinite creator as opposed to the human flesh mind not being able to truly conceive that. I was not using it in reference to an insects lifespan. I noticed you didn't comment on the gist of what I was trying to convey to you. I noticed how good you are at changing the subject while commenting on something irrelevant while still remaining somewhat inside of the subject. I am impressed. You would make a very good lawyer. not true Cassandra I would never ignore you, I just notice that your post was more of a rant against me and a religious sermon to me as to why I had the umitigated gall to ask the Original Question but you also emphasized on "infinity" so to explain infinity was the proper way I choose to respond to your post to lessen the chance of friction between the two of us ...also no one call tell you that infinity exist unless they have reach the end of it...so infinity is like time both are used to measure possible reality and once the reality in question has been measure only shows that both time and infinity has an end Cool! no problem... I don't want to rant or give you a sermon Funches I don't want to bore you or try to force you to do anything you don't want to do. Actually, I find you are quite an entertainer. You actually make me laugh quite often...Take care and stay warm...

feralcatlady Joined Mon 10/08/07 Posts: 35491	Wed 01/09/08 04:43 PM
funches you need a vacation....want to come to California......I will take you to Disneyland....

Curious0569 Joined Wed 01/09/08 Posts: 1	Wed 01/09/08 06:50 PM
i think a perfectly good rational explanation to your question is that unless a person wants to believe in an infinite regress of antecedent causes (which to my knowledge makes no sense since an actually infinite number of finite causes cannot exist) then whatever ultimately caused the universe (since sciene has clearly affirmed that the universe did in fact have a beginning), that cause must itself by nature be eternal and self-existent. Hope this helps.

funches Joined Sat 12/01/07 Posts: 12948	Thu 01/10/08 06:26 AM
i think a perfectly good rational explanation to your question is that unless a person wants to believe in an infinite regress of antecedent causes (which to my knowledge makes no sense since an actually infinite number of finite causes cannot exist) then whatever ultimately caused the universe (since sciene has clearly affirmed that the universe did in fact have a beginning), that cause must itself by nature be eternal and self-existent. Hope this helps. it would if the Original question was about the creation of the universe but the original question is about the "creator's creator"

Differentkindofwench Joined Sat 04/07/07 Posts: 5960	Thu 01/10/08 07:03 AM
this thread is about questions that the religious will just close their minds to and refuse to answer or just afraid to answer because it will question their suppose faith or question that they just can't answer rationally ..here's the first one according to believers logic, God had to have created the universe because the universe couldn't have popped out of nothingness and create itself .....so therefore do the same logic apply to the creator if the answer is no then could you explain why with a rational explanation

funches Joined Sat 12/01/07 Posts: 12948	Thu 01/10/08 11:50 AM
this thread is about questions that the religious will just close their minds to and refuse to answer or just afraid to answer because it will question their suppose faith or question that they just can't answer rationally ..here's the first one according to believers logic, God had to have created the universe because the universe couldn't have popped out of nothingness and create itself .....so therefore do the same logic apply to the creator if the answer is no then could you explain why with a rational explanation the question ask do the same "BELIEVER'S LOGIC" apply to the creator...it doesn't ask to explain how the universe was created..

feralcatlady Joined Mon 10/08/07 Posts: 35491	Thu 01/10/08 11:53 AM
There is no "Creators" Creator as there is only one.

Differentkindofwench Joined Sat 04/07/07 Posts: 5960	Thu 01/10/08 11:56 AM
i think a perfectly good rational explanation to your question is that unless a person wants to believe in an infinite regress of antecedent causes (which to my knowledge makes no sense since an actually infinite number of finite causes cannot exist) then whatever ultimately caused the universe (since sciene has clearly affirmed that the universe did in fact have a beginning), that cause must itself by nature be eternal and self-existent. Hope this helps. Would whatever caused the universe in the above statement refer to the creator as "that cause". Hence would that cause not be equal to the creator and thereby answer "does the same logic apply to the creator? Is that not the question. Therefore would not this poster's answer be, "that cause must itself by nature be eternal and self-existent."

Differentkindofwench Joined Sat 04/07/07 Posts: 5960	Thu 01/10/08 11:57 AM
good name by the way, curious.

funches Joined Sat 12/01/07 Posts: 12948	Thu 01/10/08 12:08 PM
There is no "Creators" Creator as there is only one. no feralcatlady..."there can only be but one" is the main line from those "Highlander" Movies ..so God is Duncan McCloud and chop people heads off with a sword ...ou ou ouchhhhhhhhhhhh

feralcatlady Joined Mon 10/08/07 Posts: 35491	Thu 01/10/08 12:10 PM
you be too funny.......you always make me laugh....or get really pissed off... but mostly laugh.....

Differentkindofwench Joined Sat 04/07/07 Posts: 5960	Thu 01/10/08 12:21 PM
Sounds more like a sneeze...

funches Joined Sat 12/01/07 Posts: 12948	Thu 01/10/08 12:35 PM
i think a perfectly good rational explanation to your question is that unless a person wants to believe in an infinite regress of antecedent causes (which to my knowledge makes no sense since an actually infinite number of finite causes cannot exist) then whatever ultimately caused the universe (since sciene has clearly affirmed that the universe did in fact have a beginning), that cause must itself by nature be eternal and self-existent. Hope this helps. Would whatever caused the universe in the above statement refer to the creator as "that cause". Hence would that cause not be equal to the creator and thereby answer "does the same logic apply to the creator? Is that not the question. Therefore would not this poster's answer be, "that cause must itself by nature be eternal and self-existent." the orginal question is not disputing if God did or didn't created the universe ..it was the poster making the claim that science has proved the universe has a beginning and the poster then concluded that God must have created it ... the Original Question doesn't ask if the universe has a beginning or who created it the original question ask if the same logic applies to the universe supposed creator

funches Joined Sat 12/01/07 Posts: 12948	Thu 01/10/08 12:36 PM
Sounds more like a sneeze... feralcatlady must be allegic to possum hair or santa's beard

Differentkindofwench Joined Sat 04/07/07 Posts: 5960	Thu 01/10/08 12:42 PM
i think a perfectly good rational explanation to your question is that unless a person wants to believe in an infinite regress of antecedent causes (which to my knowledge makes no sense since an actually infinite number of finite causes cannot exist) then whatever ultimately caused the universe (since sciene has clearly affirmed that the universe did in fact have a beginning), that cause must itself by nature be eternal and self-existent. Hope this helps. Would whatever caused the universe in the above statement refer to the creator as "that cause". Hence would that cause not be equal to the creator and thereby answer "does the same logic apply to the creator? Is that not the question. Therefore would not this poster's answer be, "that cause must itself by nature be eternal and self-existent." the orginal question is not disputing if God did or didn't created the universe ..it was the poster making the claim that science has proved the universe has a beginning and the poster then concluded that God must have created it ... the Original Question doesn't ask if the universe has a beginning or who created it the original question ask if the same logic applies to the universe supposed creator There are times I swear you are intentionally obtuse. curious flat stated the cause of the universe, supposed universal creator must be by nature self-existent. Thereby saying no there was no creator of the creator and why such is determined.

funches Joined Sat 12/01/07 Posts: 12948	Thu 01/10/08 12:57 PM
There are times I swear you are intentionally obtuse. curious flat stated the cause of the universe, supposed universal creator must be by nature self-existent. Thereby saying no there was no creator of the creator and why such is determined. hummmm let me give you a simple explanation why that is non-sense..you are saying just because the creator created the universe therfore he has no creator ..ok now what if I counter with....the creator's creator could have created the creator so that the creator could created the universe how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood