Possibly the end of the world!

[Teяa253]

Sept 11, 2008 3:44:05 GMT 1 Orophin said:

So, where do you start counting?

Imagine the number line, then, if that's the image you want to use. Every single negative number, even though the amount is infinite, happens at once. Then, there's 0. Big bang. Time comes in. Numbers now appear in order, in a rythmic pattern.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11... etc. instead of -2444 -31 -5 -98 -8375866 (No comma's = no time between them. All splurted out at once)

Now, of course, this could very well mean that the universe will go on forever, and I'm fine with that, to be honest.

But, that would then show the begginning of true time. Ordered, constant.

Of course, we know the Big Bang occured, as we've studied the radiation left over from it. Then, we calculated some things about it (very carefully, mind) and discovered the approximate time of the Big Bang. So, we know how long time has been in existance. We know how much time there has been time.

that's just what we like to think...
we have no solid proof that the radiation came from a big bang... for all we know, God put it there... lol or Chuck Norris

but you're making absolutely no sense with your idea of negative numbers...
form what you said, you said that anything before zero was not in a rhythmic pattern...

the negative numbers are a rhythmic pattern as well (because no matter what anyone says, it still goes, -10, -9, -8, -7, ...(got lazy)... -1, 0, 1, etc).
to say that time suddenly decided to organize itself at point 0 (whenever the big bang occurred) is absolutely absurd.

and I know it's not the negative numbers thing you're trying to prove. let's say that the big Bang occurred at point -7.
does that means that anything lower than -7 was all just crazy and jumbled, and then suddenly fell into place? I thought the Big Bang theory was supposed to be logical... =3

The only reason I brought up the number line though was to debunk your "theory". you said "everything has a beginning and and ending, and I debunked you in 2 seconds flat.

and now that we know that NOT everything has a beginning and and ending, who is to say that the universe and time itself have a beginning or an ending?

logic? or did evolutionists devolve back into monkeys?
~Azula~

[Orophin]

What I'm saying is, numbvers are nothing like the time stream. Orignally, they were numbers. You know, the ammount of things there are?

Like, say, "I have three apples, I take way 1, I have two". Now, this is why negative numbers don't apply. Because, in anything asside from methematics, negative numbers might as well be imaginary. You can't say "If I have 2 apples, then I take away three, I have negative one apples." It is impossible to have negative anything. You can't have negative three houses, or negative 50 IQ points, or anything like that. So, in a way, negative number's are imaginary, at least when it comes to real-life application.

Hence, numbers, in real life, have a begginging, which would then mean it is entirely possible for everything to have a beggining, as it does.

[Teяa253]

nope.
not at all...

that just means that tangible things (such as apples be it) have beginnings and endings.

another good analogy about numbers is that the negative numbers are things we cannot understand...

evolutionists like to think that they (or even we as humans) know so much, when in reality, we know barely jack.

so... here's another one...
does the UNIVERSE have a beginning?
not a "when", but rather, a "where"

WHERE does the Universe begin, and WHERE does it end?

and what is beyond those points?
(hint: there is no answer)

there's a reason man made something called "infinity". it is to explain things that have no beginning and/or end
~Toph~

[Orophin]

And that's why we perform experiments like the one described on this thread. Then, we'll know far more than merely "Jack". We'll know Tom, Luis, John, and Steven, too.

Of course, where the universe began has an answer. I'm no scientist, so I wouldn't know. But, it does in fact have a "centre". And, as the unverse is always expanding, it does indeed have an end. And there is nothing beyond it, because the universe is everything. So, if you go past, then you're nowhere...

Confusing, yes, but true.

[Teяa253]

confusing? yes. true? doubtful.

you seem to lack the concept of infinity...

and this "center"... how is it defined... how do they know that it's the center... is there some sort of super-powered gravitational force there? (because that would make sense)

maybe the Universe has a beginning if you start from the center, but to "begin" on one end and "end" on the other... that is an impossibility.

confusing? yes?
true? there's no evidence against it.
~Azula~

[Orophin]

Well, duh. The universe isn't a line. It has three dimensions. It doesn't have "ends". But, if you could somehow travel really, really far in any direction, eventually you'd leave the universe... if possible, we don't know what happens at the edge, never having been there yet. Possibly there's some sort of matter destroying black hole...

[Teяa253]

or perhaps it is eternal...
but I like how you say that we don't know what happens at "the end of the universe"... shows that you're not as prideful as most...

but yeah, it's just like we don't know how the earth formed, how the dinosaurs died, how we as humans first came here, or how the universe formed.

and I have evidence to back up my claim.
my evidence is that no one was there when any of these things happened, and anyone who might have been there didn't write it down... =P (or record it)

~Katara~

[littlelouie11]

oro was totally pwned in all of this

[Orophin]

Was not.

And Tera? We do know all those things...

Ande Blue? Kinda hard to be pwned when you're right... kinda really hard.

[Teяa253]

Sept 11, 2008 12:26:53 GMT 1 Orophin said:

Was not.

And Tera? We do know all those things...

Ande Blue? Kinda hard to be pwned when you're right... kinda really hard.

except for the fact that I, not you, was right. ^^

because no, we don't know these things. we like to think we know these things, but we don't.

does Antarctica exist?

how do you know it exists? have you been there... or do you just have faith that it exists?
(faith-- Mental acceptance of and confidence in a claim as truth without proof supporting the claim. [taken from Wikitionary])

for all you know, it could just be one big wild scheme pulled off in someone's back yard... The only way you would know for a surety that it exists is if you went there yourself.

similarly, the only way these scientists would know if there really was a Big Bang was if they were there themselves to witness it... they may think they have proof, but for all any of us know, maybe something else was setting THEM up... maybe there were Aliens who were good boy scouts and "left no trace". does anyone alive today know what exactly happened 12 billion years ago? absolutely not.

again, it's just people trying to gather information from around them and turn it into a feasible story so we can try to better understand life...

and there is still nothing that denies the existence of a god.


...and there never will be.

Happy birthday Oro... I shall present to you the gift of being wrong yet again. (challenges accepted)

~Azula~

[Orophin]

Wrong how? I mean, did you witness your birth? I mean, sure, you can see it's after effects (You being here) but did you see it? I mean, of course I'm comepletely disregarding all reason here, but then, that seems to be common in a debate with you. Reasonable evidence is something that provides enough proof in a non-faulted argument (I'm not getting into what a faulted argument is, it's boring) to beleive it.

In the case of religion, not a single proper argument has been given.

And on your "Antarctica" argument, it's faulted too... I mean, even if we go there, we would still not have enough evidence to know it exists. It might just be in our minds. Ir maybe, nothing we see or feel is real, and we're all the imagination of some higher being, or some advanced computer simulation. Tell me, do we know that?

So, though we have no evidence against such a thing, we still beleive that we are here, and the things around us are real. Why? Well, in my case, anyway, it's because I'm not someone who beleives things like that. I beleive only in beleiving things which have reasonable evidence. In the case of Antarctica, I'm willing to go on the pictures, the video's, and the images from space.

Now, just a question that's been praying on my mind... do you beleive in the traditional image of God? Omnipotent, all knowing, and purely good?

[Teяa253]

Sept 12, 2008 15:08:37 GMT 1 Orophin said:

Wrong how? I mean, did you witness your birth? I mean, sure, you can see it's after effects (You being here) but did you see it? I mean, of course I'm comepletely disregarding all reason here, but then, that seems to be common in a debate with you. Reasonable evidence is something that provides enough proof in a non-faulted argument (I'm not getting into what a faulted argument is, it's boring) to beleive it.

ah, but "reason" is just a fancy term for what we as humans like to think is right. it's just like trying to definitively say what is "good" and what is "evil". it depends on the person. I mean, if you try telling the most stubborn creationist that your theories are "reason" they'll just laugh at you. the same for the opposite.

Sept 12, 2008 15:08:37 GMT 1 Orophin said:

In the case of religion, not a single proper argument has been given.

that is because you know nothing of a "proper argument" then.
"it's like Apples and Oranges" to use the old cliche. I mean, look at their concepts: an omnipotent being forming everything into what it is (note how I didn't say created fro nothing--I said he formed it) vs a huge explosion and everything gradually changing over time (and I'm not trying to make one or the other look bad. that is just what their stories are in a nutshell). they are obviously two completely different beliefs.

Sept 12, 2008 15:08:37 GMT 1 Orophin said:

And on your "Antarctica" argument, it's faulted too... I mean, even if we go there, we would still not have enough evidence to know it exists. It might just be in our minds. Ir maybe, nothing we see or feel is real, and we're all the imagination of some higher being, or some advanced computer simulation. Tell me, do we know that?

I love this statement, because it brings up a principle that I learned from high school. some students asked "why doesn't God show that don't believe in him a sign?"
the answer for that is because kinda like that poster, some people would still not believe. "Those who believe never have enough proof, and those that do need no proof"

Sept 12, 2008 15:08:37 GMT 1 Orophin said:

So, though we have no evidence against such a thing, we still beleive that we are here, and the things around us are real. Why? Well, in my case, anyway, it's because I'm not someone who beleives things like that. I beleive only in beleiving things which have reasonable evidence. In the case of Antarctica, I'm willing to go on the pictures, the video's, and the images from space.

and my Antarctica statement just means that we as a people who have not been there have faith that it exists.
Why do I bring that up? because that is the same principle which I base my beliefs on--faith. any other reasons? not really.

Sept 12, 2008 15:08:37 GMT 1 Orophin said:

Now, just a question that's been praying on my mind... do you beleive in the traditional image of God? Omnipotent, all knowing, and purely good?

That's a difficult question to answer, as there is so much to explain...
I guess I really can't say I do, since I believe that God, Jesus, and the holy ghost are not the same person.

Oh, and just like I believe that God is our heavenly father, I also believe that we have a heavenly mother.

~Azula~

[Orophin]

Sept 12, 2008 15:41:36 GMT 1 Teяa253 said:

ah, but "reason" is just a fancy term for what we as humans like to think is right. it's just like trying to definitively say what is "good" and what is "evil". it depends on the person. I mean, if you try telling the most stubborn creationist that your theories are "reason" they'll just laugh at you. the same for the opposite.

Yes, but reason is easy to find. Have them lay out their argument, and then if the argument either uses itself as a reason, (E.G. Dogs are the only things that get fleas, because fleas only go for dogs), or create some other flawed form of argument (Once again, not getting into it...), it can be considered unreasonable.

that is because you know nothing of a "proper argument" then.
"it's like Apples and Oranges" to use the old cliche. I mean, look at their concepts: an omnipotent being forming everything into what it is (note how I didn't say created fro nothing--I said he formed it) vs a huge explosion and everything gradually changing over time (and I'm not trying to make one or the other look bad. that is just what their stories are in a nutshell). they are obviously two completely different beliefs.

Um... I'm not sure if you actually said something here, but of course they're different. My point was that religion is yet to give a reason why they beleive as they do.

I love this statement, because it brings up a principle that I learned from high school. some students asked "why doesn't God show that don't believe in him a sign?"
the answer for that is because kinda like that poster, some people would still not believe. "Those who believe never have enough proof, and those that do need no proof"

That's just crazy. Needing no proof seems to only occur when you have none, doesn't it? Proof is kind of the point of a debate... without it, well, it's kinda pointless. Like having a trial without it... *Actual Avatar referance on an Avatar site, OMG!!*

and my Antarctica statement just means that we as a people who have not been there have faith that it exists.
Why do I bring that up? because that is the same principle which I base my beliefs on--faith. any other reasons? not really.

I don't have faith that it exists. I have reason to beleive that it exists. Like I said, picturese, video's, images... all provide reasonable cause for beleive. Whearas religious beleive has shown me nothing. Not a single shred of evidence. Not even a decent attempt... Of course, you may provide one now, if you wish.

That's a difficult question to answer, as there is so much to explain...
I guess I really can't say I do, since I believe that God, Jesus, and the holy ghost are not the same person.

Oh, and just like I believe that God is our heavenly father, I also believe that we have a heavenly mother.

~Azula~

Well, I never assumed you thought those three were one... hence them being three. In fact, wasn't Jesus supposed to be the son of God, not an earthly incarnation of him? Although, maybe another religion beleives that... I'm not an expert on the matter, obviously.

So, which, if any, of those three attributes do you assign Him? And, to continue that, Her?

[Teяa253]

Sept 12, 2008 16:25:44 GMT 1 Orophin said:

Yes, but reason is easy to find. Have them lay out their argument, and then if the argument either uses itself as a reason, (E.G. Dogs are the only things that get fleas, because fleas only go for dogs), or create some other flawed form of argument (Once again, not getting into it...), it can be considered unreasonable.

the depends.

Sept 12, 2008 16:25:44 GMT 1 Orophin said:

Um... I'm not sure if you actually said something here, but of course they're different. My point was that religion is yet to give a reason why they beleive as they do.

and yet it has influenced so many things in this world, it's unreal. The United States has "In God We Trust" on its coins. The Pledge of Allegiance includes God. The Crusades were based on religion. The 9/11 attacks were based on religion.

No matter what position you take on religion, you cannot deny that is the most defining factor in our world today. I can see it now. "But science is the most defining factor today!"

Why do we pursue science? Is it not for the betterment of the human race? To learn more concerning our origins and fate?

These are the exact same things religion focuses on. Therefore, either science is a religion or religion is a science.
You could argue that religion is a science and therefore science is the defining factor of our world today, but the terminology used does not change religion. If they are grouped the same pertaining to characteristics, they are the same, whatever you wish to call it by.

It is not our technology and knowledge of the physical world that causes war or peace. It is our beliefs how we can use it, its morality. The beliefs define the technology, the science. Our religions define the science.

"So are you saying that religion dictates how the universe functions? What about Galileo, he got in huge trouble with the Roman Catholic church for saying that Earth wasn't the center of the universe!"

No. I'm not saying that. I am saying, however, that science's sole purpose is to learn about the physical and better the people with that knowledge, and that is defined by religious beliefs. (I am using the word "religion" to mean your position on anything pertaining to higher deities, etc. including atheism, Scientology, etc.)

Religion defines science. It is the basis of our world today. ^^

Sept 12, 2008 16:25:44 GMT 1 Orophin said:

That's just crazy. Needing no proof seems to only occur when you have none, doesn't it? Proof is kind of the point of a debate... without it, well, it's kinda pointless. Like having a trial without it... *Actual Avatar referance on an Avatar site, OMG!!*

again, my theory stands (see poster)

Sept 12, 2008 16:25:44 GMT 1 Orophin said:

I don't have faith that it exists. I have reason to beleive that it exists. Like I said, picturese, video's, images... all provide reasonable cause for beleive. Whearas religious beleive has shown me nothing. Not a single shred of evidence. Not even a decent attempt... Of course, you may provide one now, if you wish.

well, the Bible has it written down...
words, pictures, they kinda have the same purpose....
and of course, Mormons have the Book of Mormon, which goes hand-in-hand with the Bible (but does not replace it). and of course, I could get into an explanation of who the Native Americans are, but knowing how little you believe, you probably wouldn't believe me anyways, so what's the point?

"but the Bible is bullcrap"
well, considering it's thousands of years old, I don't think it happens to be some lame fiction book like our science books are (I mean, they were written in this day and age. HEL-LO... lol)

I mean, if you're just gonna yell "give me proof give me proof" then I'm gonna move on to someone who is actually intelligent enough to debate the subject... (would give a link, but not allowed to advertize) Again, I'll bring up the old statement one of ym teachers told me.
even if God did give a sign, it would not convert very many people."
sounds about right....

Sept 12, 2008 16:25:44 GMT 1 Orophin said:

Well, I never assumed you thought those three were one... hence them being three. In fact, wasn't Jesus supposed to be the son of God, not an earthly incarnation of him? Although, maybe another religion beleives that... I'm not an expert on the matter, obviously.

So, which, if any, of those three attributes do you assign Him? And, to continue that, Her?

I believe in a pre-existance. before we came here we were spirits, and when we did come here we got a body. God already had a body, and Jesus was supposed to be the example, so he had to get a body as well. I do not he's an earthly incarnation of god. rather, he's the son of god.

the Heavenly Mother issue though brings up a whole new spectrum though. I believe that the reason we know so little about her is because God holds families (particularly mothers) in very high regard. He didn't want people to abuse her name like they have done with his, and that is why she is not mentioned nearly as much.

and that's about it for the time...

~Azula~

[Orophin]

Sept 12, 2008 16:46:50 GMT 1 Teяa253 said:

the depends.

On?

and yet it has influenced so many things in this world, it's unreal. The United States has "In God We Trust" on its coins. The Pledge of Allegiance includes God. The Crusades were based on religion. The 9/11 attacks were based on religion.

I doubt anyone would say that religion is not a major influence. I certainly never will...
But that's not the issue. The issue here is the truth of religion. Whether or not religion is "correct". Whether there is or is not a higher power of any sort. There is no doubt about the influence of religion here.

No matter what position you take on religion, you cannot deny that is the most defining factor in our world today. I can see it now. "But science is the most defining factor today!"

Just wanna say, I dunno if either is the "most" defining, but that's not important...

Why do we pursue science? Is it not for the betterment of the human race? To learn more concerning our origins and fate?

These are the exact same things religion focuses on. Therefore, either science is a religion or religion is a science.
You could argue that religion is a science and therefore science is the defining factor of our world today, but the terminology used does not change religion. If they are grouped the same pertaining to characteristics, they are the same, whatever you wish to call it by.

Well, the point isn't really which is a defining factor, that just seems to be avoiding the point, but regardless, I think that religion and science have one key difference. One is almost entirely faith-based, whearas the other offers theories with evidence and support. Of course, theories are proven and disproven all the time, which of course changes "fact" for most people. The problem is, as science is used in everything, it becomes increasingly difficult for religion to keep itself together, so it sometimes has to adapt as well. However, there is no case in history when Religion has proved something and science has had to change to occupy it. This leads me to the conclusion that Religion is more affected by science than science is to religion. Meaning, of course, that even religion has to accept scientific proof, whereas science may have to accept religious proof, if there were any. As this has not happened, we can only assume that it isn't the case.

It is not our technology and knowledge of the physical world that causes war or peace. It is our beliefs how we can use it, its morality. The beliefs define the technology, the science. Our religions define the science.

Belief does not equal religion. Belief means "knowing" something. Of course, knowing is relative, but "knowing" something means accepting it as true. "Faith" means doing so without a reason. That is where (certain) religion(s) are based.

"So are you saying that religion dictates how the universe functions? What about Galileo, he got in huge trouble with the Roman Catholic church for saying that Earth wasn't the center of the universe!"

No. I'm not saying that. I am saying, however, that science's sole purpose is to learn about the physical and better the people with that knowledge, and that is defined by religious beliefs. (I am using the word "religion" to mean your position on anything pertaining to higher deities, etc. including atheism, Scientology, etc.)

Religion defines science. It is the basis of our world today. ^^

Religion does not define science. You are, for one, assuming that science's goal is to "learn about the physical and better the people with that knowledge". This isn't how science is. It's goal is to find fact. Whether beneficial or not. It is religion which seeks to better people. That's it's purpose. I mean, why else beleive in something beyond life? Because people don't like the idea of death. Real death. No more thinking or feeling death. Dead death.
Sceince wants to explain every question there is, so that we know the answers. It is about simple facts, and the proving of such facts. It entertains certain theories above others if they seem more probable than others, but eventually, science has to find a way to proof or disprove it. Religion is not fact based. It is faith based.

again, my theory stands (see poster)

That poster seems to be a way of saying "We don't have evidence, so we disregard it as a factor".

well, the Bible has it written down...
words, pictures, they kinda have the same purpose....
and of course, Mormons have the Book of Mormon, which goes hand-in-hand with the Bible (but does not replace it).

Words and pictures are completely different... The kind of picture I'm talking about it a photograph. It captures light, and then produces an image based on the light, almost like an eye does.

and of course, I could get into an explanation of who the Native Americans are, but knowing how little you believe, you probably wouldn't believe me anyways, so what's the point?

Well, see, there's your problem. Things like Native American's are proven scientific fact. You see, they left these things called bones... evidence, you see, that they existed. And of course, the fact that they still exist and are alive is kind of a dead giveaway... Now, God, on the other hand, left nothing, and shows no proof of him existing today.

"but the Bible is bullcrap"
well, considering it's thousands of years old, I don't think it happens to be some lame fiction book like our science books are (I mean, they were written in this day and age. HEL-LO... lol)

Yeah, thousands of years old... like, say, the beleif that the earth is flat?

I mean, if you're just gonna yell "give me proof give me proof" then I'm gonna move on to someone who is actually intelligent enough to debate the subject... (would give a link, but not allowed to advertize) Again, I'll bring up the old statement one of ym teachers told me.
even if God did give a sign, it would not convert very many people."
sounds about right....

Ah, but if he made some sort of proof... not a "sign". I can leave a "sign" of a dog crapping in a park, but that doesn't mean it did. (Coulda thought of a better analogy. Didn't) Proof is different than a "sign".

I believe in a pre-existance. before we came here we were spirits, and when we did come here we got a body.

Pre-existance? Isn't that an endless loop? What about before said pre-existance? I mean, we can't of been like that for all eternity before now. That defeats the purpose of us being here now. I mean, why now? Why not just start us off in bodies? Or keep us as spirits? Or are we just like toys that can be turned on and turned off at will?

God already had a body, and Jesus was supposed to be the example, so he had to get a body as well. I do not he's an earthly incarnation of god. rather, he's the son of god.

the Heavenly Mother issue though brings up a whole new spectrum though. I believe that the reason we know so little about her is because God holds families (particularly mothers) in very high regard. He didn't want people to abuse her name like they have done with his, and that is why she is not mentioned nearly as much.

Well, you didn't answer the question I posed for you...

Which of the three attributes, if any, do you assign to God and/or the Heavenly Mother?