Google is God

http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/Scripture/Proof_Google_Is_God.html

Well, Google has yet to create its own universe within seven days . The ultimate master proof of becoming one God.

and you believe that seven days thing... thats stupid because when universe is creating, light is expanding at its max rate, and thus time too, so there is not time, since time is not constant initially at the "bingbag"...

because if e=mc2
we can also know that
sqrt(e/m)=c thus.. light speed depends on the energy and the mass of the universe at that time, which is only possible being c different, because time cannot exist before an universe exists... since time and space are connected.. and to exist space there must be some energy to be converted to mass... which makes time to exist...

at time = 0... e=100% and then E turns to mass..
but initially e=100% and m=0 then e=c2, which is not logical. because you can't divide something by zero... so there must exist mAss before already.


i think you mean earth in seven days.

(7*24*60*60)*C (light speed) will tell us how much meters light traveled in 7 days, and i think universe is more extend than that distance right.

i have to pee..

Don't be lame Mike. This way you're not an Atheist/anti-Catholic but a prick. Had your first physics class today or something? Can't believe I'm defending but here goes.


I never knew Einstein was actually God in disguise. Thanks for clearing that up!

I did not mean earth in seven days. Ever wondered why Sunday is called Sunday? But I'm sure you know. It should actually be: the universe in 1 day and the earth and moon in 6 days.

well over HERE portugal its not called sunday, lol not in portuguese. And the name DOMINGO has nothing to due with Sun or God in anyway i know.. Thats overthere for only.

but the thing is .. your messing with time.. but as you know time is not equal in every point of the universe , for example a blackhole in the horzion event.

And so if time is not equal we cant tell 7 days, because, that counting will depend where you were counting right
Perhaps that existed an universe already, what happened was just a mix of other universes colliding with each other or that so called Membranes...

Wow, I am loving this topic.....good thinking mike, I do not know how many times I watch science ans space shows on youtube or whaerever....I just love it.

For the more personal matters: I don't need anyone to disprove me the existence of God. I am well aware of the pros and cons. I'm not agnostic because both sides are wrong.

Before starting an argument, watch who you're arguing with. Because right now, you're arguing a joke.

daammmnnn... SH*T JUST GOT REA' UP IN HERE!

Yeah, sorry, bit too harsh. I dislike it when people turn joke material in serious matter to their hand.

What's the joke here? Your cocky frustrated attitude or your view on the existence of God? I'm guessing both. God can't exist for quite a few obvious reasons, but stating both sides are wrong is silly when in essence it's about only two possibilities. Either he doesn't exist or he does exist. I don't see how both can be wrong here.



Why are you defending anyways? You're obviously wrong in your belief.



It's called Sunday because it's American Football day on Sunday, that's why... Seriously though, the word and meaning behind Sunday has changed a whole lot and historically has little relevance when it comes to religion. Sun in Sunday really means 'the sun', not the son of God or the Christian God. Heck it doesn't even mean it's the name of Christian Sabbath. It's the name of the first day of the Hebrew calender and in much earlier times it related directly to worship of the Sun. Not in a divine entity sense though!



Actually you can divide by zero, but it remains questionable how much sense that would make within most mathematic frames of logic. It doesn't mean it can't be done, for example dividing by zero might practically result in something leaving it's state of existence (in our universe).

No PHeMoX, this whole thread was meant to show google's joke . Not to start a religion war. Now read again, I said I'm agnostic because both sides have arguments that are true, not wrong. It is the open mind that considers viewpoints from both sides, no matter how false one seems to be.

God can be defined such as that science can not disprove its existence. For that, God may or may not exist. I don't state people in the past are right, science has proven them wrong. But that doesn't rule out there isn't a different form of God. To a second note, in the end I could care less if God exists or not, my life is independent on this question. But I like to throw my unwanted opinion in the ring .

Well i must say I dont believe in something church says or said or vatican or bible i dont.

Because its FULL OF Lies.. that was a story of love between EVA and ADAm to show humans that love is important to survive and not WAR...

I believe..though, there is a "GOD" responsible for all this, but not the GOD many talk... not a person nothing but a Aim of life, the Creator of this energy... this must have a purpose...

Look perhaps this is just a Dream like matrix, you are being tested here in this life.. maybe its a futuristic Game you know.. and when you die (game over) and someone will tell you.. so do you liked to be this guy in the game, living the life with that particular pre destiny and specific circumstances to check if you can make it trough?

universe is so complex thats it has no explanation and its almost irrealistc i mean its infinity how can that be!?

Bible says: God created Earth and humans etc and never talk about Other planets with life.. But..

Sometime ago i saw Pope say , they defend Alien existance ??? and its possible or .. we can0t deny the will of God to create other creativity in other planets and ways.. Damn. what a workaround to solve the Alien Existence..

Look into this picture and you see there is life in other suns of COURSE, what does civilization believe also in GOD? why because JESUS went there too? OH what a coincidence.... Do they have Church too?








by, courtesy of NASA

so much possibilities for life..
probability of earth being the only one =
1/10000000000000000+infinity.. ~ 0%


PS: the google joke is nice.. anyway.

Sigh. If the universe is so big, then why do you live in such a small world?

i like this much more:
http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/Scripture/10_Commandments.html

This pic looks sooo Photoshopped xD

Don't be fooled though, these false colour images can be very real ^^.

This pics look photoshopped because they are. When a telescope (eg hobble) takes a picture it is not like real thing.real thing may be dark or even invisible or visible only on special light with a certain wave length.So the telescope should capture all waves (even those that are not visible by human eye). So after that data must be visualized to be visible by human eye. Of cource it is not done by photoshop but some thing similar. So colors may look unnatural or photoshoped.
I think this is the reason but i may be wrong.anyway a have not physics PHD.

I think Bible is not the real thing.It is changed during time. in early years church realized that the real Bible may be dangerous for them.So they changed it slowly during years.And current Bible is completely different from orginal Bible.
I am sure in Orginal Bible it was mentioned that life may exist in other planets.
For further info refer to book "Angles and Demons" by dan brown.


Its amazing

Yup, that's accurate. The colours are false but come from real data.

i know they are false color, of course, though i believe somewhere there might be some color "cloud" because light may refract differently and the wavelength be visible.. though the Spots of light (stars / galaxies in the distance) are real.. and thats the point here.

About the bible, i know there are some( i think is Chinese )scripts from very old ages, where describe aliens coming and living in this planet.. though because its a dead language no one nowadays are "able to translate it" its like the old summerian and etc..


Anyway , we cant see that stars in it max, because of pollution.. But if you take an long exposure you can even see the milky way galaxy we are in..

Are you sure you've got this right? Because this seems really far out to me. If nobody can translate, how the heck do you know that it has anything to do with aliens, of all things?

Well what i mean , is they just translated some parts... the book, is very deteriorated to Translate more.. but its seems that this book describes some geometrical techniques and some knowledge, that they had before us. But as i said the book is very dirty and damaged.. and no one wants to read it, its hard, and time consuming.. But from what they read they descibre Aliens and spaceships etc ...

I saw that on a Documentary Program, i download in a torrent. Thats talks not only about Mayan but other cultures like those Chinese, and its books (scripts)

Its like the Archimedes Google Project you know? Very bad conditions...

If it's dirty, damaged, and we only understand about half of the language it's written in, then I find it hard to believe that we can understand so much about this text.

so if google is god, and we use google does this mean we use god?
and google was man made, and cant exist without any serious business plan so god is a man made corporation that needs to rely on the economical strength of its customers to ensure a further relevance over the course of time.

that means that prior to google there was either another deity considered god like for example peanut butter jelly or the great wall of china, which, ironically, has nothing to do with google (anymore) so one god was recast with another one similar to the terrence howard/don cheadley thingy in iron man 2 just that dark chocolate who was a god prior to google aswell is far better than google in my own eyes but im more of a don cheadle supporter than terrence howard. i also dislike the raimi spider-man movies but that goes too far off into other territory.

anyway, i support the theory that google is god since that really is not as far fetched as an omnipotent being which defies the logic and physics of space and time to create a planet full of slaves in seven days yet he needs their love although he can easyly send us all to a hell his firstborn slaveangel created to fuck with him wichich makes no sense whatsoever.

i really really like dark chocolate...

I'm not judging your view, so please don't get me wrong, but agnosticism for many just means being 'undecided' on or 'uninterested' in the God topic. It has really very little to do with arguments that are potentially true at both sides as you say.

In fact, it's easy to challenge your 'science can't prove God' argument as being relevant and valid in the exact same sense, but this time against God.

There's this old mockery in which someone wonders how God can be both omnipotent and all powerful when God obviously can't create a stone too heavy for him to lift, but at the same time being able to lift it anyway.

As for the science can't prove God argument, science at this point in time can't rule out the potential existence of God(s) indeed, but science can still speculate with what we do know and to be honest that doesn't really leave a whole lot of room for a God to exist (unless perhaps you believe in God in the pantheistic sense). The more science figures out about our universe and how it came into existence, the further back in the past a God would have to be placed to make sense, assuming it would make sense at all, which I personally seriously question.

Also don't forget the whole 'faith trade' in religion, which in practice means science BY DEFINITION (according to religious people) has a literally different understanding or definition of 'truth'. This means any kind of proof from whichever of the both perspectives, won't be recognized by the other.

You don't need to be open minded to see that in itself is nuts if all you're trying to do is a more objective kind of truth-finding. Science requires evidence, religion requires faith. It's a mute point to argue about how both at many times totally ignore this simple fact. It still doesn't mean one isn't bluntly wrong though!!



The irony in all this is that the concept of modern day Gods in the Christian or Islamic sense can not exist without ignorant worshippers that believe in organized and highly profitable religion. A shame really, especially if there's some truth in there, having to literally pay for it would have been the last thing a God would have demanded.

At the very beginning mankind consisted of very much pantheistic nature-loving people. For a good reason, we could see and understand the sun's relevancy and so forth.

Obviously that's far closer to the truth, but I'm thinking oppression, mental/social control, war and what not were worth trading it in for deism... :s



Exactly!

because the book is stacked and some pages are yet more less intact,but other parts you cant read at all

MMike's description of time not being constant and so on is not uncommon as a scientific concept (or at least the general gist of it), and this is why: Science attempts to describe natural phenomena without using "God" as a reason; either the chain of cause-and-effect needs to have begun with something that is not bound by the limits of cause-and-effect (What caused the Big-Bang; what caused that? What was the first cause? "God" is an easy answer there), or time as we assume it works is an illusion and isn't as simple as a cause-and-effect chain, but instead best related to a curve with an asymptote at 0 -- never having a starting point.

PHeMoX, I don't know what's unusual about Joozey being agnostic on the basis of neither side disproving the other. Most people I know who are 'uninterested' in the topic assume that God has been proven not to exist, and are atheists. Few people I know describe themselves as agnostic, and those who do have logical grounds for their position.

Unfortunately your argument about all religion being a system of control is as uneducated as ever. Like I've told you before, the picture of a highly profitable church is a very narrow view, with mostly Roman Catholicism in mind. The Roman Catholic church being representative of Christianity in general is a very typical view of the media and those who know of Christianity but little about it. But there's a reason there's a difference between "Protestant" and "Roman Catholic", and you'll find that many Protestant churches' only financial goals are to make ends meet, or to raise funds (or volunteering workers) for those in need around the world.

I have traveled around a fair bit, and only seen one Christian non-Catholic church that showed any indication that it was profitable: Hillsong.

The "official" scientific view (if their ever was one) would be at least agnostic, as nothing can be false for sure until it is disproven, and nothing can be described with 100% certainty as a law -- only theorized to likely hold true.

To bring the topic back to where it's meant to be, the church of Google is a funny joke. It's interesting that people react so strongly to it on the site -- if the "Church of Google" is a threat to their beliefs then there's something wrong.

When amy started this thread I had a look at the different pages, and it is quite funny

Commandment #6 is the funniest imho, but thankfully Google is always gentle with its correction!

Jibb

Exactly that.

I do know you're still the same person that denies any of those TV priests have anything to do with your Christian religion, so I think we both know where the truth's at. I was in fact talking about religion in a very broad sense and not only about money.

Calling me uneducated is childish at best here, where you're really just ignoring what is happening because according to you it's not part of 'your religion' (or you claim to never have seen bla bla bla).



What exactly are you trying to say here? I was neither attacking Joozey's belief, nor stating that agnosticism is wrong or something. I already explained what I did mean to say.



You're talking about two different things here though One is philosophical, the other scientific. Time as a metric concept that relates to our mortal lives and time space spread throughout the universe that influences the 'tempo' of things in a literal sense. (this can be measured and calculated)

I am pretty sure general consensus in the scientific world is that this time space is definitely not an illusion.

As for time space having a beginning (or end for that matter), we can really only speculate. If you can only see half of a circle at this point in time, you can not know if it's going to be a perfect circle or a spiral.

In general though on a very basic level, things set in motion tend to have a cause and it might very well be that big bangs, universes coming into existence and all that are reoccurring events. There's a whole range of theories already invented/proposed around this idea.

One thing to note is how potentially inter-dimensional or even multidimensional events can cause for things in this, but perhaps also other universes.

There seems to be an ever more 'optimistic' view on the whole multiverse theory.

As a relativist I totally agree, but when it comes to knowledge, that's actually totally irrelevant. One part of gaining knowledge, is designing theories and looking for clues that make them look valid. In extension to that, it's really too easy to disregard any scientific speculation when it's actually based on what we do know. It's the next best thing to objective truth, when in a sense such a thing doesn't exist. (Please don't tell me I have to explain to you how we indeed 'assume' we can see with our eyes what our brain tells us and very basic stuff like that; as reality really is that relative in it's most abstract sense. Science is where mankind shows it's true creativity, but its methodology makes sure it stays within a certain realm of logic.)

Within the frame of our existence (mankind's existence), it would be stupid to dismiss anything or everything, just because in a philosophical sense we can't prove it for a 100%.

That 'label' in itself is actually an extremely relative thing anyway, as we can not even determine when we've reached that 100%. 100% is everything of everything, but if we can't determine the unknown, how can we know that we didn't already uncovered the entire 100%?? It is obviously a description/definition that simply screams relativism.

All in all, it's really an argument that in practice we can't do to much with. In fact, look around you and see how perhaps not even 0.000000000....0001% of knowledge about our universe got us where we are now. From what we've accomplished already, I don't think theories or a lack of knowledge at some point in time were ever a true limitation to progress. We used the knowledge that we did have, to gain even more. Apparently that works!

Yes, it was childish for me to call you uneducated. Certainly not moreso than you calling those who believe in God "ignorant", but that doesn't justify it. Sorry. Your arguments just suggest a limited understanding of Christianity.

The point is and always has been that religion (like everything else in this world) gets abused -- when people kill in the name of God, or use it to gain power over other people -- then of course it is wrong. Roman Catholicism exhibits abuse of religion as it profits enormously while prescribing new teachings to its adherents as those in power see fit. That, however, puts them in a bad light as it's easy to look past the likelihood that they aren't really seeking to be manipulative.

The Reformation was actually a big deal, recognising these abuses, and putting God's Word -- for your sake: "The Bible" -- first. The result is Protestant churches that generally put The Bible's teaching first, even if they have varying attachments to some traditions (hence most of the difference between denominations, which are ultimately of little importance). People aren't in power over others; God is. The reason I'm a "Baptist" is that there is no hierarchy -- each church has its own "Pastor", and the congregation can elect for him/her to leave if they want. The main differences between most denominations are church structure and adherence to symbolic traditions.

This isn't about me saying everything about Christianity that is obviously wrong is not the way I do it and thus not important. I have moved around a lot, been through many different Protestant churches of all sorts of denominations, and if I've ever left one it wasn't because it didn't fit with my ideals, but because of issues such as me moving, or the leadership there being boring. These are all places where I see a community that is not only under no financial obligation, but is also not under the control of any human being, nor each other.

I can't recall anything about TV priests -- I can't imagine I ever had much to say on them, since I've never been one to watch televangelists.

I am by no means "ignoring what is happening" -- I have never dodged around the negative parts of generalised "religion" that result from abuse, gross misinterpretation, baseless superstition, and the flawed nature of humanity. Yet you say there is no God, partly on the basis of the aforementioned abuses evident in the world ("the last thing a God would have demanded"), ignoring that some actually follow him outside the influence of such abuses.

I never suggested that the general consensus is that it is an illusion. I suggested that some like the idea that time (not time-space) as a simple chain of one thing causing another is an illusion. Allow me to expand:
If time is simply a chain reaction of events where one thing causes another -- time works just as we see it and is not an illusion -- then time needs a beginning. Why? Because nothing could happen without being caused first, and if this chain goes back eternally -- every effect waiting for the cause before it to occur first -- then nothing will have happened. Time appears to be absolute, but the relativistic view is that this isn't true -- hence describing time as "an illusion" (not whether or not time had a beginning -- the finite/infinite nature of time-space is debatable in other threads -- simply that time is "absolute"). Perhaps "illusion" wasn't the best word to use. I've already forgotten my intention in attempting to explain MMike's description (which is a little difficult to understand -- not his fault, but English is not his first language); I remember someone asking about it, but looking back I can't find anyone seeking a clarification.
And I explained what I meant to say: all examples of self-proclaimed agnosticism I've seen are of similar logical grounds to Joozey's (I say "self-proclaimed", since many people who call themselves "atheist" just because they are unsure are actually "agnostic" without knowing it -- not referring to anyone here). I find it interesting that you find his situation unusual, and perhaps you can elaborate on that. I don't think I gave any reason for you to believe that I thought you were being aggressive in your statement -- sorry if I did.

In regards to your last post: my statement (which Joozey agreed with) doesn't attempt to suggest that we can't believe that something will always hold true even if it is only on the basis that it has always worked that way. Personally, my point was actually that God's existence has not been disproved. Many claim (though this isn't directed at you at all) that their disbelief in God is scientific; but that doesn't fit with a scientific perspective. Disbelief in God comes from other reasons.

Sorry for the very long and still-offtopic post!

Jibb

i agree..
Well the time explanation things.. i have nothing to say, i was typing fast, and had no effort to make it sound very logical to everbody...

in Suma:

Time is not always equal, because time is a product of space existing somewhere.

Without time there is no space.. otherwise you couldn't use this:
on time = 0; mass=100 and assuming e=mc2 ..

We got m(mass of object)= e/c2 so..
100kg=e / c2 -> where light speed is measured with time (1s to move from 0 to 300 000 km) and if there is no time, you can't say its 300 000 km/1s since time =0s this would mean 300 000 m / 0 units which is not possible under "logical" means. because to even measure 1 sec, you need time, otherwise its stuck on 0s.. since time is a flux of a changing rate of energy or something "really hard to understand" its like the wave-particle paradox..

thats why lightspeed object "probably" will become into energy and loose their mass?? (converted right from e=mc2)

Check this.. because if im not doing wrong maths..
e=mc2 then, m=e/c2 so , keeping energy constant lets say 100 units

mass(m) of a object running at half the speed of light:
m=e/ 150 000 which is higher than m=e/ 300 000
Weird because its against someone i heard that told super speed gives massive mass, and makes thing heavier

As far as I know, the speed of light is constant relative to the observer. This means c2 will always be the same -- we can't change m = e / c2 to m = e / (something else).

The formula for relative mass is something like: m1 = m0 / sqrt(1 - v2/c2)
As v approaches c, v2 -> c2, (1 - v2/c2) -> 0, sqrt(0) = 0, m1 -> positive infinity (that is, approaches, but never reaches, because it would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object to the speed of light, since its mass is increasing as it accelerates, so we never have to try divide by zero in this case).

"Time dilation" is similar -- t1 = t0 / sqrt(1 - v2/c2). So, like you said, time is not always equal -- it's not always experienced the same way from different observers. In fact it generally isn't as long as we're moving relative to each other, but at such a low speed the difference is impossible to tell.

Well, I just about exhausted my high-school relativity Goodnight!

Jibb

eheh.. but anyway.. when somone says per second.. the velocit of light.. we must understand that in 1 sec 300 000km reached, but the 1 second had to be measured in a time existing environment, which can be different from different places (near the sun, or near a black-hole..) where light cant escape ( because its not fast enough when passing the curved space...) so time there 1 sec passed, but thats very relative and you told...


There is this thing that i cant stop thinking...
when the universe had its " bigbang.." time was created as space did expand too

And, since space was being created, there was no mass yet formed ( because mass occupy space with no space there cant be mass to be placed ( i think), so everything was energy in a tiny dot (big bang Theory)... so can we say? e=mc2
that... e= 0 * c2 ??? which means no energy at all? then no bigbang, there must be mass already... but where? if it starts on a tiny dot of energy

and how can energy be transformed to a proton or something that will give hydrogen and stars and all that matter...

One of the newest theory states that every big bang occurs from a black hole in another universe. A black hole gathers mass over an infinite* amount of time in one universe, and blasts all of that out in an instant as another universe. So one instant of time in that universe is an eternity* in ours.

But these are just speculations.

So, here an example of how the big bang did not occur out of nothing. I'm sure there are other clarifications of what happened before that first 10^-15 second the universe existed. God, aliens and time travelling monkeys are not excluded, but one is more unlikely than the other, and all more unlikely than the more scientific methods. This statistic of likeliness is derived from past revelations in physics: by science instead of God or aliens (by our current knowledge founded on facts, and not believe**). But in the ultimate end, it´s all 50/50 as all of them have a chance to be truth.

Out of all three I somewhere would hope God existed, as I would like someone to be able to take care over us, as we seem not capable of watching over ourselves. But I do not like to believe in lies and dream dreams. If science was founded by mankind alone, then great! Life is amazing indeed. If aliens gave us technology, then great as well! We're not alone after all, and they were so close all the time. Just to declare my neutrality and show that whatever is truth, all solutions have their good sides.


Of course one does not need to stop the pursue in the meaning of life and the universe. I like to read all stories, but I do not like senseless forum wars in threads that are not even meant to start one. You get no more an answer posting in this thread than making your own relevant thread.

Why indoctrinate everyone by your alien theory, MMike? You will create your own lies eventually, and belie everyone you drag into your believe by saying you state facts. This is no science.


*Close to eternity in our humble perspective.

**If one was to say aliens gave us the science to reveal what we know, and evidence would be the messages they left us in crop circles or Baghdad batteries or whatever, then it's solely founded on believe and desire in aliens rather than rational thinking. Here too chances are 50/50 that either aliens gave technology or mankind found out themselves. It's foolish to think humans can not think of these ingenious devices by themselves. You better dive into human societies first before talking, and figure how smart some of us really are. Not all of us are bleating dummies not able to think of something ingenious without the help of aliens or God.

I think you might not have understood why I brought up the "stone that's too heavy for even God to lift" argument, as it's basically the same grade, same kind of argument, but against God.

You're convinced of your belief and therefore your 'it's not disproven' argument has a lot of value for you, but as the Spaghetti Monster God and equivalents show, that really holds no true value at all.

It might be fact that your God (whatever the literal definition of that 'being' would be) isn't disproved, but that doesn't make the contrary true or even likely!



No, it doesn't at all. It merely suggest you are a follower of a special kind of Christianity, that in your idealized view doesn't share any connections with Christianity as a world-religion that's spread all over the world. You're convinced your religion is without a dark history, but that's really where you are the ignorant one.

Whenever I am talking about how religious people in my opinion are ignorant, I'm talking about their belief in creationism and all the scientific evidence that points in an entirely different direction. I'm also thinking about how history and mankind itself, and not God, determined the content of the allegedly divine inspired Bible texts. Last but not least, I'm thinking about the 'divine intervention' for which there's really no evidence at all. If it's not proven by solid facts, why assume it is??

look i understand the god fellows, because they were educated to act like that.. exaclty!

Imagine if nobody told you about it.. you would grow in a free-mode... now you were told to believe in such...

From the old ages AC(after christ), someone assumed sun is to god, its rainning its god.. its a lightning stroke, its god intention... Because were ways of persons to make logic (assuming its someone intention) when humanity could not explain what the hell was that for...

1:
Do you think ants thinks about GOD?
Do you think your Dog believes in GOD, so what the hell you have to believe? thats like.. lies chain spread from time to time.. you are you and thats it...

Because if you want facts... i tell you some:

First, before Christ, there were humans already, the first ppl were i think Sumerian, they were giant.. thats why sumerians and egipts were painted giant .. and their monuments were gient too..

2

ANd also, its known to paleontologists that Humans and Dinosaurs lived together.. yes thats truth, but.. you dont learn that at school and wont come in books otherwise.. teachers would have to explain alot hell of things.

And if Dinosaurs died from an Meteor, why humans not? So there was a previous Existance...

3:

NOW : Sumerians had SPACESHIPS painted on their walls, how do you explain that?? they were spacetravelers already??.. SO THERE IS LIFE OUT THERE, and do you want more proofs than the history that is Written in the stones of nature? ..
you can believe in Church and that you are alone, in the cosmos.. but thats up to you... Egipt had electricity, and we just discovered (ups re-invented) by Nikola Tesla we are really late in technology! something that was discovered thousand years ago. Just now we checked that MAxwell is right, and SCALAR WAVES, and ANTIGRAVITY really exists.. and its explained how it can be reversed...

Cosmos is bigger than we can imagine, the world is not how we see it, from this tiny planet we live in, there is always an other side...

All this is kept in secrecy by our GOV and Church and Schools (which is like a school) because if you would like to go out-there to know more, people start revolting against GOV and they dont want that for sure.. so they need to shut up...

Anyway life it to great to be life this we live.. because there is more, but they are closing our mind to it.

Free energy exists, but USA wants petrol, because imagine a world where electricity water and everything else was free.. Well there would be no money for GOV at All..

The "stone that's too heavy for even God to lift" argument doesn't hold water. That's like an "unstoppable force" hitting an "unmovable wall" -> one or the other has to be a false definition. Is God limited by weight or mass? No. So describing a stone "too heavy for God to lift" makes just as much sense as "spaghetti too green for God to eat" -- none.
No, and please don't be so presumptuous. The "it's not disproved" argument has nothing to do with my faith. It's just a logical counter-argument to those who purport to suggest their belief that there specifically is no God is strictly scientific.
With possibly as many Protestants as Buddhists in the world, my "special kind of Christianity" is not that special. I don't think I've suggested anywhere that there are no links, or that it doesn't have a dark history. Those are mistakes, like we all make. Do all the dark deeds some of your ancestors may have committed have any bearing on your actions in your life? Why should Christianity's history have any affect on what it is today? If anything we learn from it. It's still based on the same book it was based on back then, yet those past mistakes are not justified in the Bible!

Whether or not it is really the same book as it was before (if I recall correctly you strongly believe that the Bible has changed too much over time) is debatable elsewhere.

I'm not evangelising here; I'm simply defending my faith while you attempt to evangelise Atheism -- especially in response to your issues with Christianity that are actually quite specific to a distinct subset of Christians. It's like saying rock music is bad just because most popular music that comes under the "rock" genre is bad, but if you actually look for yourself at what constitutes "rock", you'll find that there's actually a lot of creative music in there.

When a mathematician and a historian disagree on a fundamentally mathematical issue, it suggests (not proves, but definitely suggests) that the historian's understanding of maths is limited. Similarly, when a Christian and an Atheist disagree on what is representative of Christianity as a whole, it suggests that the Atheist's understanding of Christianity is limited much more strongly than it suggests the Christian is ignorant.

If you must evangelise your Atheism, at least don't be rude about it, nor hijack a thread that is completely unrelated for it.

And please recall that this forum in general is usually not very receptive to people trying to force their views on other people

I don't attempt to generalise Atheism in front of all the actual Atheists here -- I'd just embarrass myself. You need to realise that some of the people you're generalising Christianity in front of are actual Christians -- and that my version of Christianity isn't as unique or rare as you might think.

Jibb

i think humans are the only one believing GOD. because thinking to much leads to stupidness... and believing in something that I never had FACTS i mean, did i see something? that force , beneath my eyes? I remember sometimes asking GODs help, i saw nothing.. I was just a fool. But I still have hope that something exists, but i think i never felt it...

UFO are more probably to exist then that GOD thing.. Because we see UFO sometimes, and GOD never appear



ANd imagine a world made of robots life and cyborgs, whom there is no soul, and they were totally autonomous.. would they believe in SIN and GOD, and Would they care?

Out of curiosity, MMike, what do you believe about souls? What makes a "soulless" machine that is equally complex as the human body (and all that's in it), any different from a natural organic "machine" (an actual human) with a soul?

Jibb

well what I though about that, JulzM, we are organic machines, but i just wondered the Soul concept, im not sure if it exists or not, but... i think when i brought that soul and cyborg thing was to compare that they are no different from us, and they dont believe i a GOD for certainly ,thus i think believing in Souls is one step closer to Faith and Religion And GOD Phenomena LOL. Sorry i dont know if im explaining correctly.

by they way i just find out your face on the facebook topic... its always interesting to know who we talk to.

Yeah, it is good to know who we're talking to Feel free to add me if you want.

With the "cyborg" idea, if they are no different to us, then surely some of them would believe in souls as well?

I think that you're right -- the belief in a soul and the belief in some sort of God(s) are closely related. Buddhism is an exception to most large religions, which teaches we have no souls, that we are strictly the products of cause and effect, and that there are not necessarily any gods -- Buddha himself was agnostic or atheist, depending on how you define those terms. No soul, no necessity for a God.

As I'm sure you've guessed, I do believe we each have a soul. Certainly a soulless machine can be tricked into thinking it has a soul on the basis that it thinks of itself as one being. But what I experience, and what I'm sure everyone else experiences, must surely be different from simply the cumulative effects of physical causes.

Jibb

You've missed the point... again. Whether you like it or not, your religion is directly related or even down right responsible for a lot of wrong-doing in this world. That was my argument and you're indeed acting as if your Protestant version of Christianity changes that entirely. It doesn't.



Can you prove God is not limited by weight and mass? Heck no!

If you'd follow the logic of simple cause-event chains, you should realize God would very likely have to be limited by weight and mass in some way for it to be able to influence it.

"Is God limited by weight or mass? No."

That's really just another one of those billions of claims religious people make about their God all the time. The actual conceptual definition of God is a pure figment of human imagination.

I really don't agree that "spaghetti too green for God to eat" is a good analogy to the "stone to heavy to lift, even for God". It's about the almightiness, not God's taste which would be a mere choice anyway.

I shouldn't have to explain this as it's overly obvious... but.. Aren't you the one who believes God is able to influence all things with it's almightiness? And even (potentially) create? Well if it can create and both influence things with it's almightiness without any limits as is often said, then one would assume it can A. create a stone too heavy to lift for God and B. that would then instantly conflict with the common assumption that God in it's almightiness would be able to lift anything, everything and always, without limits as well.

I know either one of those has to be false, but that's not the point. It does however clearly show how an argument without evidence backing it up, is pretty much irrelevant altogether. Saying God is not disproved by science (or even possible to be disproved by science), hence he must exists, is equally as stupid as saying God doesn't have to be proven by facts, as all you need for it to 'exist' is faith.

Apparently you're having a hard time to grasp the logic and sense behind all of this. I'm not attacking you here, it makes sense as you're convinced of your belief and that's why you look at that in an entirely different way.



You see, this is why I called you ignorant before when it comes to Christianity throughout the world. Reality check; organized religion defines the content of the Bible or the interpretation of the texts. There's a whole lot in the Bible that still justifies plenty of very outdated ideas.

It's too easy to hide behind the idea that you or your local religious community interprets the Bible differently and therefore beliefs it doesn't justify what happens elsewhere.

In most if not all cases religious people just interpret the Biblical texts however they see fit.



Specific to a distinct subset of Christians? Yeah, right. You're just pretending wrong-doing in name of Christianity in whatever way doesn't happen anywhere near you.

I'm not evangelizing atheism at all, I'm attacking deism, in particular organized Christianity, but really also religion in general. When it comes to my own world view I'm really much more agnostic and somewhat of a pantheist actually. As said many times on this forum, I tend to go with what we do know, facts and knowledge. Yes, however relative. But not blind faith and the usual ignorant sheep behavior.



No not at all the same. You're saying I can not think of rock music as bad, because there's also a special kind of rock within the main genre that according to you is so great and wonderful that I can not think of rock music as bad. Thát's what's up here. And I obviously do not agree with that.

In fact, to stretch the analogy a bit further and explain my view; I am sort of arguing here that the main rock music genre is bad by definition, because it always comes with guitar riffs in it and screamy vocals.

I'll try and keep this short.
I have not missed the point. I never denied the history behind it. But people are responsible for those things. Not my religion. If someone kills in the name of PHeMoX it's probably not your fault. If someone kills in the name of money, or love (as is often the case), it's not the fault of money or love. Perhaps you can say otherwise if texts that are particularly important to a religion condone or encourage such actions, but they don't!
If you want to take this discussion seriously, please don't just skim over what I've written and fill in the gaps with your imagination. I was very clear that I'm not arguing that he must exist. I'm saying you have no grounds to say he cannot exist.I was not saying the spaghetti tastes bad -- colour has nothing to do with taste. That's the point. Weight has nothing to do with God's ability to lift it, as he isn't a physical being under the restrictions of physical laws (that's logical, not only from the idea that he creates something out of nothing, but also the idea that he was the first cause, and is thus not bound by the constraints of cause and effect).
Organisations as a whole have defined history for as long as history has been recorded. Like I said before, the reliability of current Bible translations can be discussed elsewhere. Neither of us have enough understanding of the Greek of New Testament times to discuss this point. However, in some denominations it is a requirement for Ministers to learn to read the Ancient Hebrew and Greek languages used in the oldest manuscripts of the Old and New Testament. As much as it is arguable that we perhaps don't have access to the letters and books of the New Testament as they were when they were written, I'm sure it isn't hard to believe that modern translations are consistent enough with the Bible as it was during the crusades."Local" is too strong a word -- my family are from South Africa, and I've moved around Australia, Fiji, and now live in Canada where I've been to two different churches so far. And again, I have never attempted to justify wrong-doings done in God's name, Christianity's name, or even by Christian organizations.
Again, doing something on behalf of another system doesn't make that system culpable. I have no issue with your problems with "organised religion", but your vision of Christianity is skewed by (yes, I say it again) a specific subset of Christianity. I don't care how much you scoff at such a description. Such a reaction is indicative of how little you are actually considering what I'm saying. Even that specific subset, which has many things I disagree with, is not responsible for these bad things: it's the weaknesses of the system (a monarchic system with a human head; a system which places too much power over people in the hands of a few -- a weakness that we specifically moved away from during the Reformation).
Again, don't put words in my mouth, please. I'm not saying you can't have a dislike for something, but to say authoritatively that it is all bad when you don't understand of significant parts of it is wrong. Admittedly, I was vague with my analogy.

Jibb

thas exaclty were i wanted to bring you because.. now how do answer this:

The star sea, when broken in pieces, they give another being equal to the initial, which they move and live again, and now what? where they got that soul from..? weird isn't it? Thats why i think soul is like a weird thing I just can't say if exists or not

That's an interesting question. I've wondered something along those lines -- apparently an earthworm can survive once it has been cut in half -- both halves live on separately. When do they become different earthworms?? This is probably why the concept of a "soul" is often connected with a belief in a higher power or a supernatural element -- something higher than the physical world, perhaps with one who has authority to create and distribute such "souls" as He/She/It wills. Apparently in history some have described certain body parts as housing the soul.

The Bible describes us as having dominion over the Earth and its animals, and having a unique breath of life. Thus many Christians (as well as Jews, and I think Muslims, who have similar origins) believe animals (like seastars and so on) don't have souls -- really just organic machines.

Jibb

I have not read the bible, and I do not plan to, so I ask; Does the bible specifically state organic beings, humans in special, have a physical soul? Or could this soul very well be a non-physical collective description for things like character, preferences, emotions and mentality?

The New Testament describes death of the body and death of the soul as two different things; that the people of this world can kill your body, but not your soul: only God has the power to do that. I'm sure this is more than just the memory of our "character". But quite frankly the concept of a "soul" in the Bible is something I take for granted, and can't recall more precise details without looking into it

Jibb

By all means, go look it up! You'd be surprised.

The soul in the bible is often simply the equivalent of 'life' embodied in living creatures. In the earlier usage of the Old Testament it has no reference to the later philosophical meaning of something of an immaterial nature which will survive the body.

The immortal soul concept in modern-day Christianity obviously came from ancient Greek philosophy and it's therefore pretty unbiblical. Lots of scholars agree and admit this, heck go through church history and you'll find someone called Saint Augustine who's largely responsible for the change of how 'souls' are interpreted.

There's often times a huge difference between popular theology and what can be found in the scriptural teachings.

But if animals have souls and we are animais, and then we have too, monkey too , cause we are all animalia Class... why Humans always want to be the best, the most powerful.. we are bodies like everything else.. i think sould is just.. a Canal from the body, to a controller, outthere... it must be that!

Thats why Aliens said , This is a vessel and they are not afraid of die, since souls can jump from vessel to vessel, death is not the end.

What most terrifies me, is that my memories will fade away, since they are made in my neurons ( i think thats were they are) and my personality will all gone, what i had learn, everything.. so if i re-incarnate later, I wont remember my past, and i will never know, that i have had lived before..

Actually that's one of the major points of lifes like ours and nothing to really be sad about...

do you think thats good? do you believe in SIN?

Well it's one of the most important aspects of our lifes so yeah I think it's a good thing. You have to see it from a perspective though - I don't know how you see things right now...

Do I believe in sin? I think that's not a real question in the end - hmmm how should I express this? Well a sin is something that in the end doesn't really exist. It only comes into existance by comparing things to a premade list consisting of good and bad things making it sort of a subjective thing. I don't think that there is a being the Christianity calls God that judges our doings if you mean that bringing up some sort of single definition of what's a sin and what not...

Our lifes are about what you came up with: This total cut-off from e.g. the knowledge about former lifes and also many more things. At the same time you have the possibility to do whatever you want without any restriction. Life now is about exhausting this freedom and learning while doing so. So even if you are the meanest, most evil person on the entire world and you do horrible things that's doesn't make you "bad" or makes your life less "worth". You weren't given all this freedom without meaning. Maybe this sounds like a confusing concept at first and is a "pro anarchy" or "survival of the fittest" argumentation but it really is not. Many religions tell you certain things are bad and threat you with punishments of all kinds when doing those but that's just half the truth and of course tries to bind people to them by using the fear factor...

You were given the ultimate freedom and you won't get punished by actually using it in a way that someone defined as "wrong". There most certainly exists a concept though which is / could be called "Karma" (it imo isn't a much better word than sin though as there are many definitions of what "Karma" actually means). This once again isn't about punishment but rather a concept of actio=reactio. To simplify it a bit and give an example: If you're an oppressor in one of your lifes you most likely might find yourself in the role of someone oppressed in one of your next lifes. So there is a consequence in your doings but it's no punishment and also no judgement in terms of good and bad - just a consequence...

Yet again this also might sound a bit confusing as there seems to be little sense in e.g. playing Ping-Pong between two roles. In the beginning I said something about learning which life is about. When you think about it a bit more you might understand the direction which sort of is given and you can only really reach, understand or even better "live" by actually having learned in your lifes...

There's a lot more about it but I hope I have given you some kind of start or overview...

but the bad side is born again and need to learn everything again! thats.. bad
if we could retain the knowledge, we would just improve it? right...
Memories goes!

interesting radio interview is :
http://216.18.211.130/audio/Bill_Deagle_Project_Camelot_Nutrimedical_Report_Jan_12_2010_part_1.mp3

The concept of everlasting life is referenced a lot in the New Testament, and along with the aforementioned concept of a bodily death being different (and less significant) than the kind of death God could put on you, these point towards an extra essential part of us that isn't physical.

Add to that descriptions of us being raised with bodies unlike what we have now: what makes those bodies us if they don't share the same physical nature as what we have now -- surely there is more to us than a physical body in a complex and constant chain reaction if "we" can be enjoy everlasting life after the death and decay of our bodies.

The Bible doesn't appear to describe what a soul is, but I don't think it needs to. My soul seems intuitive to me, and is not something I had to be taught. Instead, "soul" is a word that I associate with something I've always had based on the context in which it is often used. Apparently Jewish tradition does contain descriptions of the soul, its function, its origin, and so on. But I don't know anything about the details of that.

So, yes, the idea of an immortal soul is supported by the Bible, even if we aren't told, "This is what a 'soul' is".

Jibb

Which is what I said, it's not actually in the bible. Especially conceptually, it's different.



No, you're wrong here. This is exactly what I meant with the difference between popular theology and the actual content of the scriptures. But hey be my guest and believe whatever you want or whatever your local churchleader commands you.



The New Testament is the Greek Testament, the second major division of the bible. You should brush up your knowledge about it's history and what structural supersessionism means... as this exactly proves my point!

Easy there, mate. I rarely take the minister's word as gospel until I've looked in my Bible myself. Generally during a sermon most of the congregation has their Bibles open in front of them, following along. I'm not saying "immortal soul is supported by the Bible" just because I have been told so. You suggested I look into it, and I did.

Here's a fairly well-known one:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16
Also:
"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10:28
"I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable." 1 Corinthians 15:50
Yes, the New Testament is the "Greek Testament", because it was originally written in Greek. What's wrong with that? That certainly doesn't impose "ancient Greek philosphy" on it, although the possibility is there. You're implying that nothing in the New Testament is of worth unless it is already in the Old Testament. Wouldn't that make the New Testament redundant?

You can't tell me that I won't find what I'm looking for in Christian Scripture, and then when I find it tell me it's useless because it's in the wrong half.

Jibb

It was written in Greek because it came from the Eastern Roman empire, an area that tried hard to become as 'Greek' as possible when it comes to many things, not just Greek philosophy. Oh and at that time it wasn't actually ancient philosophy, but what they believed in back then. Hence that link there really is pretty obvious.



Well, why rewrite something, when it's supposed to have been of divine origin? This is what I meant with supersessionism, or replacement theology. It's pretty obvious the Old and New Testament often clash, both in content and ideology. I could open a new topic on that, but it should be dead obvious to anyone who knows even a little about the bible.



No, not at all, because it's really not actually in there.



This clearly refers to the afterlife and potentially speaks about heaven, not the 'soul'. That's simply a big stretch of what I would consider the most common interpretation. After all, Jesus doesn't give people a soul. Even in Christianity, in a philosophical sense, every one has their soul already. This text clearly speaks of how the afterlife would be eternal.



This is typical rally speech for the oppressed to be honest and should be seen in a context of exaggeration and soul here could very well just mean 'hope'.
I'm not saying it doesn't mention the word soul here, but I do think it's pretty obvious from the context that it's not very specific about what 'soul' means here.
When it comes to parallel translations of this very same piece of text, you'll see people interpret it in all kinds of ways. Some even go as far as to say there's a separate hell for the body and another one for the soul, but that's really all just a modern interpretation of what could very well have meant something else in ancient days.



One could interpret this as simply being the notion that one has to physically die before being able to get in heaven. (very convenient too, as this removes the burden of proving heaven even exist)

'The imperishable' might imply that it speaks of a soul in the sense you believe here, but it's still pretty unspecific in a literal sense. It's the same lyrical writing style the bible's full off, that can really mean anything or nothing at all.

"nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable."

In my opinion this basically means so much as 'something liable to perish or decay, won't become indestructible (through death). Meaning death will be a transformation.

Where in this do you think it would infer speaking of a soul in the definition you speak of??



You're not going to admit this and you don't have to, but all you've really found are your own interpretations. I don't want to sound arrogant here, but in a way this is exactly what I had predicted. It's the difference between popular theology and the actual scriptures.



I seriously doubt that.

Like I already said, such a link provides an opportunity for the New Testament to be tainted that way, but neither makes it certain nor probable. Many of the letters admonish those converts who attempt to hold on to parts of their former religions.
Wow. How can one have an eternal afterlife and a dying body if there's no more to them than physical interactions? Really, I'd love to know. Before you point to Buddhism's concept of "rebirth" -- despite having no concept of soul, one is connected from one life to the next by their karma. Hindus have a somewhat similar concept to us of a soul -- an "atman" that connects their reincarnations. I'd love to hear how one can look at Christianity's eternal life and a physical death, and not see their being more to us than the physical.An exaggeration of what? What could it possibly mean? Even an over-the-top pep-talk has some sort of meaning. I'm sure we can agree to disagree in this situation, but you must be able to admit that replacing "soul" with "hope" is a stretch, and the fact that that's your best conclusion is indicative of a biased interpretation. That verse could very easily be literal, and fits with everything else.It's easy to say those are my "own interpretations". But as I pointed out above, it's easy to see your own interpretations of what I found are a stretch.

If you actually had a good look for yourself, you'd realise that it isn't that open to interpretation. Instead, you give the impression that you have read some secular studies and articles on Christianity and taken their word for it.You're just imposing your own view on me. I'm not here to lie.

Jibb

You're forgetting Christianity in that point in time was a new religion, based upon older religions. There's no way they've started from scratch again and frankly that's not what they did! This is really a fact and can easily be proven by just looking at Sumerian texts, other religions from that time and some popular ancient myths.



That's useful in a psychological sense, so of course they will. But they aren't talking about 'former religions' that in some ways have become part of Christianity. I don't think you can prove that the New Testament isn't full of Greek influences.



But that's where we disagree massively, as it clearly is open to interpretation. It doesn't matter that my exemplary interpretation was a bit of a stretch, as your interpretation is even more of a stretch! At least my interpretations stick to the literal texts.



I've read a whole lot of studies, but not just from people with a similar agnostic/atheist worldview as I have. I'm really a whole lot more neutral on the subject as you seem to think and pretty well informed for an "atheist".
I'm also really not taking their word for it, I'm looking at their evidence and as it's pretty damn solid, I just tend to agree.

You're whole idea of me evangelizing atheism is pure bs, but that's just your way of dealing with this kind of criticism I guess. And trust me, many Christians do exactly the same. It's easy to create this 'you're either with us or against us' kind of atmosphere with no room for logical explanations or different interpretations.

It's striking how fierce you believe in someone else's interpretation of the Bible, as if it's your own or even the one that makes most sense. It's easy to see many of these beliefs do not come from the Bible, but instead from your local organized religion.

It's also just pure funny to see how you do consider some parts to have a literal meaning, while in other cases you don't. It proves my point of how the popular theological content gathered out of the Bible is just an extremely relative interpretation with little to no true scriptural basis. I'm sure you will disagree, but I think you're the one who's biased here. (I'm not expecting you to agree with my interpretations at all by the way, if you believe that, you're missing the point.)

( also, this thread was about 'Google'... )

I guess you meant Egyptian not Sumerian. The Egyptians were those with Horus as the Jesus figure with the exact same story. The Sumerian stuff was about the Gods from another planet coming down and creating mankind to serve for them. You still have some loose ties to the Old Testament of the Bible which in the end is about the two brothers En'Ki and En'Lil fighting over what to do with the "slave race" mankind with all the banishment from Eden stuff and so on. At some point there was some kind of judgement making one of the brothers into god and the other one became iirc the snake and in general the sort of evil counterpart. That also explains why the God of the Old Testament doesn't really act that much "godlike" but often not different than a pissed off man with lots of power would...

Not trying to break your argument though as I tend to agree with what you're saying here...

I know. I never said they did. It comes from Judaism -- more specifically the belief that Jesus Christ was and is a fulfillment of prophecies in the Old Testament. Most of the letters in the New Testament were written by Jews-turned-Christian.
Actually it makes sense, since your first two posts had very little stimulus to bring up the absurdity you see in the very idea of the Christian God being God. You even went so far as to address Joozey's neutral agnosticism with "You're obviously wrong"... I understand this was said somewhat in jest, and was not intended to be aggressive, but it still shows your underlying desire to turn this thread into an anti-religion discussion (which you did a very good job of -- largely thanks to me getting way too involved ).What does that mean -- "stick to the literal texts"? One of your translations was basically "this is not literal", and another acknowledged the clear meaning but ignored the obvious implications of this.
Your continued belief that my understanding of the Bible is spoon-fed from someone else is not helping this discussion anywhere. Unless you can allow me some credit for what I say, this discussion isn't going to go anywhere. Then again, we've gone a long way already without getting anywhere.

Jibb

Yes, I wonder where it went wrong .
Always the same story.

So if Google IS God....

Who is the Devil? Yahoo or Bing ? (the Microslop Bing that is)

Well, since Yahoo is usuable sometimes, it must be Bing.

I am not a fan of microsoft - i like my iPhone and my MacBook, if you know what i mean xD

Bing sucks so so much.. it does nothing! i mean, i can't find the thing i want.. instead Goggle gives me right there the answer.

You're twisting my words again. I never said Joozey was wrong in being agnostic. I've already explained how I meant what was said. To be honest, it's pretty pathetic you're even bringing it up again.



Not in my opinion, but regardless, you're obviously blind to how you do the very same thing. Again, my point wasn't about how I think my interpretation is more accurate at all, it's how people stretch words as if it says 'a soul is ....', when it really doesn't say that at all, no matter how you interpret the texts.



I think you're in denial here. Besides, if you believe in your understanding of the Bible as being solely your own, and what people would get spoon-fed is the very same thing, I don't see why me saying something about it would really matter here anyway.

The fact that you believe in a concept of a 'soul' in the Greek sense, for which there's no real indication in the Bible, is proof for you just following modern dogma. I'm not saying it's wrong or bad to believe in this, but if you claim your motivation has been an objective biblical one, then you are very wrong in that belief.

As far as the actual content of the Bible, I think any modern day interpretation will be a stretch from the truth anyway, as it should be seen in context of that ancient time.

I've twisted nothing, and either you're over-reacting or you've misunderstood me. You were very clear that a belief that either view is possible is wrong, on the basis that "God can't exist for quite a few obvious reasons" -- none of which have occurred in this thread. And it's not pathetic. I called your atheistic evangelism what it is, and you said that was "bs". Accordingly, I brought up appropriate evidence for my claim.
That's simple. I have continued this discussion under the generous assumption that you actually are well-read and haven't just watched a youtube conspiracy video, while you do the opposite: in a patronising manner you refuse to allow the conversation to go forward on the basis that I'm wrong that I actually have an understanding of the Bible. You have a hunch that I have not been raised as I claim, and on that basis my references to the Bible are too "blind" or "biased" to be of value to the discussion.
One more time: eternal life + death of the body = we're more than just a body. We don't need "And this is a soul:". A "soul" is what gets preserved eternally by God's grace, even after our body is gone. It's how our post-death existence is different to an equally complex machine that ceases to function (obviously theoretical).

Anyway I'm done with this discussion. I know we've been off-topic for a while anyway, but this discussion hasn't been productive at any point.

Besides, I don't have anything left to say to the actual topic besides: Search results from other engines are never as relevant as Google's And Google Apps is awesome.

Sorry everyone.

Jibb

i agree AMEN

Not at all. You should really read my initial reply again and stop bringing this up. In fact, I'll just copy and paste:



Perhaps you've mistaken this for suggesting an agnostic person should choose a side or something. That's not what I meant at all. I meant to say that agnostic people usually do not really care about arguments against or in favor of God, because they tend to base their opinion on the mere fact that we do not know whether he exists or not. Additional arguments in favor or against a God aren't relevant enough for them to decide either way. Nothing wrong with that as I already said 4 times now!



--end of quote.



You've obviously missed my interpretation / argument of how death is a transformation. There is no post-death existence according to the Bible, as the death body isn't what's entering heaven, nor is the 'soul' something that's present in that death body when it was still alive. I think the Bible is pretty clear on that.

Btw I don't see why talking about an equally complex machine in context of a soul is relevant here, when the concept of a soul is really purely speculative and uhm conceptual. It could become interesting though when we would speak about other animal species. Do animals have souls according to you? I bet you're going to claim God made us 'special' and therefore we have souls, where animals don't? Is there a dog-heaven? With all due respect, I think it has so many conceptual flaws that it's hilarious in a way.



You're mistaken here. I just got annoyed by some of your replies in that they really are based upon popular theology and not so much your own reasoning or thinking, or even as you claim are directly derived from the biblical texts. You had to search for texts and couldn't come with something straightforward and conclusive. And that's really no wonder at all.

You're free to believe whatever you like! I swear! But I still think you're extremely biased and not open-minded at all to even be in a discussion like this. To some extent you're probably not even aware of how you really approach everything with a set paradigm in mind. How's that not being biased? Perhaps you think I'm biased as well for having made up my mind differently. I don't blame you.

Dunno, I don't feel like reading this thread or don't really care for yet another discussion about why god does or does not exist, but I DO feel like being picky:

probability of earth being the only one = 1/10000000000000000+infinity.. ~ 0%
should be:
probability of earth being the only one = 1/(10000000000000000+infinity).. ~ 0%
because of order of operations.

Otherwise the probability of the earth being the only planet with life on it would be... pretty high

lol.. i just forgot the closing parentesis lol.. you are right.. sorry.

i mean really 1/100000000 (or infinity)

WOW...this reminds me of this http://www.venganza.org/

all hail google....