So in the beginning there was nothing but God, yes?
-
Maybe he had a IClassFactory interface, so that he could create himself;)
Does this make man some form of HRESULT ?? ----------------------- Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
-
Does this make man some form of HRESULT ?? ----------------------- Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
Does this make man some form of HRESULT ?? Of course it does ! LOL Regardz Colin J Davies
-
I had a really heated discussion with a guy today over the start of the universe. He argued adamently that the universe must have had a creator because there is no other way it could have started. I.e. things cannot start without some cause, and God alone could have been the cause (in the absense of everything) - the watch argument. Then I said to him:
ME: So nothing can exist without some kind of creator, somewhere down the line. HIM: Yes ME: And in the beginning there was NOTHING but God HIM: Yes ME: So who created God? HIM: No one did. God has always existed.
Now, does anybody else see the flaw in his argument? Can anybody suggest a viable condonement?
:cool: -=:suss:=-
David Wulff dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com
David, I come from the same direction as you do, but the 'flaw' in this logic is simply that if god exists in the way that most religions portray them/him/it/her (THIH), then THIH is the exception that makes any rule. Put simply - time, logic, physics, humor (apparently) don't apply to THIH. In your simplified discussion, it should read like this if your opponent was being accurate : --------------- ME: So nothing can exist without some kind of creator, somewhere down the line. HIM: Yes, except for god This is a futile line of argument, since it all rests on whether god is (a) limited by space/time or (b) 'outside' space and/or time. Since being 'outside' space/time is physically impossible (as far as we understand such things) then god must be physically impossible. That's okay for religion, because that's exactly what religion says THIH is! You either accept that something like that 'is possible, even though it's physically impossible' - in which case you can accept god, or you don't, in which case god doesn't exist. I'd just like to add that personally, I can make a difference between my inability to explain the beginning of the universe (what does "before" the "beginning" mean?), and the conclusion that this inability means that 'god must exist'. For the average 'joe' living 200 years ago, the idea that the world was round and that the earth moved around the sun would have been impossible to grasp - no amount of explaining it would have got it through. It was simply a concept beyond comprehensions for most. Eventually some people got it, and then proved it, and then told everybody else, and showed them proof, and (despite the vehement objections of the religious faithful at the time) these things are now understood and accepted. This whole "universal beginning" thing is a lot harder than that, but I have confidence that the answer is waiting to be unlocked - I just can't get my head around it, so I won't be doing the unlocking. At that time, the religious faithful will redouble their attacks, but eventually be forced to conceed the point - as they have been on virtually every point of science they have contested over the past 2000 odd years. ----------------------- Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
-
'Well i guess it all boils down to a question of "Faith".' Why, why, why. Why do alot of people always say that. Are you basing this on a specific religion? That is also another reason why I dont like posting about these subject, I just replied to another related thread on this forum now its a couple of pages out of date.:-D
AS i said, i dont not believe in the concept of religion, perhaps i didn't come across clearly, u see what i am trying to say is that we've created God..our faith is what gives weight to the existence of an entity called God. By "Faith" i meant , what we believe, I have different views, you have different views, you know for some time i didn't believe in God at all..then i realized why we needed one, the reasons i have already given in my last post. And Personally "about the begining of the universe" as far as i am concerned everything is again a question of what we believe in for whatever we may say there is now way we can prove or disprove it..it's like the inconsistency of arithmetic :D:D it seems so logical that something as simple as arithmetic would be consistent but it is not.. and we have been able to prove that..i don't know where i am going with this so i am going to stop here.. :D:D:D:D main(a){ printf(a="main(a){printf(a=%c%s%c,34,a,34);}",34,a,34); }
-
Care to give me a fun example of your outside of time thinking? I've actually put a lot of thought into this reply, and I still can't put my mind into words! The problem is that it is inherintly difficult for me to describe something to somebody with no prior knowledge of the subject - it always has been, and probably always will be. I suppose the easiest way of starting off would be to think long and hard about what exactly time is - both in terms of what is measures, but also what it *really is*. Once you can draw the distinction between the measurment of time and the random (yet uniform) movement of the universe we use it to measure, it is surprisingly easy to think outside of time, but more importantly, still realise that with and without time is exactly the same in terms of what is physically happening. I dunno, I probably worded all that badly. Like I said, I find it hard to explain things like this in words. Once you've got the hang of it you can switch in and out of logical thinking with time, and it, surprisingly or not, makes thinking about infinite things (be it numbers, Space, or the size of John's ego) a lot more straight forward. I know it sounds really weird, but it is a really weird thing to express in words... Dammit, why couldn't I have been gifted in English language? P.S. Thanks for removing the message on mouse hover and putting it up just when we click on your smiley Apparently it was getting on some people's nerves :rolleyes:
:cool: -=:suss:=-
David Wulff dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com
I get the impression that you didn't actually attempt to explain it, but wanted me to think it through on my own. Ok. To be honest, I've spent time trying to figure out what "outside of time" would be like. All I can end up picturing is a static picture in the shape of the universe (whatever that actually is), with the element of time represented as a non-physical "deepness". I.E. you could see every event and every division of time, but they would occupy the same portion of space. This concept is different from the 3D sort of space that we're used to. As an observer outside of time, travel would be non-existent and focus wouldn't be a question, since you'd see, do, and think in ways that were not effected by time. In other words, having the ability to "travel" to any desired position would become omnipresence; and the ability to see any event and any location inside of space/time would indicate something along the lines of omniscience. Those are things that are extremely difficult to imagine, since we can only focus on a very small number of things at a time. As soon as you try to "look" at something, you've run yourself back inside the bounds of time because you aren't focusing simultaneously on everything. Do you understand my difficulty a little better now? BTW, this is kind of fun, though it's probably going to do nothing but make us wonder where our sanity went... ;P John