Questions and Statements about God...

[geechee slim]

Define Life. What makes something alive?

Real-time use of the senses, conscious, breath, and heartbeat.

 

[blue falcon]

People are really putting too much weight on science for everything. I believe there is more to the claims of God not existing than just, "Oh well, science can't prove it so God doesn't exist."

Yes there are argumens which pose as logic that try to refute the existance of God but 99.9% of the time I street preach or talk to atheist online the science argument pops up.

 

[DoUwant2go2Heaven]

Here's why I take the religion out of debates like this....

If I'm God, why would I care whether or not humans (not my first creation) have morals, or religion? That's man-made. I'm God, I created man, universe, etc. Why should I care about wrong and right? Thats a contribution to humanity, something I'm too important to be a part of.

Theoretically, all things must die. We all die. The planet will die, our sun, our universe, one day. Doesn't the same apply to everything inside/outside our universe, including God, consciousness, and energy? Or is it impossible?

God has no beginning and thus He has no end, so yes it is impossible for God to die. He is the source of all things my brother.

 

[DoUwant2go2Heaven]

If we extend your lineage long enough ... you.

Your wrong Whar 67. All of our lineages can be traced back to 2 people, Adam and Eve. Adam was formed from the dust of the ground by God and Eve was formed from Adams rib. All of mankind has sprung forth from them. Life brings forth life my friend. And the source of all life can be traced back to the Father in Heaven, who is the beginning and the end. Now can you provide your evidence of life sprouting forth from non-life.......im waiting.....

 

[DoUwant2go2Heaven]

Define Life. What makes something alive?

When God breathes the breath of life into man, he becomes a living being. Life comes from God. He is the way, the truth, and the life.

 

[longmeat]

@Longmeat"A scientific theory is not abstract, shit a scientific theory holds more weight than scientific law"- but yet scientific thoeries are disproved all the time... Laws are used to help create scientific theories. The earth being flat used to be a scientific theory. Dont disguise the word by putting science in front of it. the same principles for its definition apply. Thats why laws and theories are used in the scientific method. Knowledge and technology change. You can tweak a theory not a law. they are two totally differnt things.

@longmeat no you just dont wont to debate because their is a possibility that you may be wrong where as I invite open thought and if I'm wrong I congradulate the person for educating me on something... So you seem like a smart guy as well as Whar67. I wont say i'm a genius but trust me I know some things. Anyhow--

Ok Longmeat and whar67, we are getting no where talking about the word "theory". I will agree a theory is always a theory. Back to the original question I pose. This anit- matter or dark matter. When anti matter is banged against its counter part matter are you saying its completely destroyed with no reminents of energy left? I'm trying to look it up myself and all I find is what they call quarks. Neutrons which contain quarks and antineutrons which contain antiquarks would theoretically annihalate each other? But it says a neutrons can decay into smaller things also.

So what is it? Does matter continuously break down or it it destroyed?

^I been tweaking this post because theories, laws, hypothesis are all important in science. Its hard to say what is the best source of knowledge between them.

A theory isn't just a theory, like I keep saying, you have to understand what's meant by scientific theory to really have a proper understanding of these issues. A scientific theory holds far more weight than a theory. It holds more weight than scientific law. Think of a scientific theory as gospel in a sense. It's been proven, reproven, tested, retested so many times that once it becomes a "scientific" theory it attains a certain status where it's 100% true. I used to have the same misconception myself until I started making sure I know what a specific word meant in a particular field, instead of assuming what it meant.

To answer your question about matter/anti-matter colliding, no they don't just wipe each other out, energy is released. Nasa is looking into using matter/anti-matter colliding to power the next generation of space crafts since so much energy is released when they collide with each other. If I'm not mistaken the effeciency extremely high compared to other forms of energy, but I'm not sure of the exact numbers. Here's a link of nasa talking about it.

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/home/antimatter_spaceship.html

I think boss-ktulu touched on this point in response to what geechee slim said. Geechee said matter can't be destroyed which is 100% false. It can be destroyed, just collide it with anti-matter and it'll wipe each other out. People interchange matter and energy so there's obviously a confusion on theses terms. Energy can't be destroyed, it's the 1st law of thermodynamics, the conservation of energy.

Give me 1 example of LIFE being made from non-life............Im waiting.

nigga no matter what i say you're gonna say "that's not true god did it!" anyway and provide no proof of your own to back up your claims so what's the point?

Real-time use of the senses, conscious, breath, and heartbeat.

According to your theory, a newly conceived fetus isn't life. There's no real time senses, consciousness, breath, heartbeat or brain. A virus isn't life, algae isn't life, etc.

When God breathes the breath of life into man, he becomes a living being. Life comes from God. He is the way, the truth, and the life.

by your definition, animals aren't alive since god didn't breath life into him. You don't even understand the damn book which you're quoting. The creation story says God breathed into Adam the breath of life, and man became a living soul, meaning he had consciousness and awareness. Like I said, going by your definition, only humans on this planet are alive. Shit any of the great apes aren't alive even though we share 99% of our DNA with them.

This is why you don't bring religion into scientific debates, you can just make shit up and have no proof to back up your claims. I can say Xenu created the 7th dimension and commissioned the maajin Rufus to bring life and consciousness to earth in an attempt to make his 7th wife jealous and there's as much proof of that being true as there is the biblical account of creation.

 

[longmeat]

Here's why I take the religion out of debates like this....

If I'm God, why would I care whether or not humans (not my first creation) have morals, or religion? That's man-made. I'm God, I created man, universe, etc. Why should I care about wrong and right? Thats a contribution to humanity, something I'm too important to be a part of.

Theoretically, all things must die. We all die. The planet will die, our sun, our universe, one day. Doesn't the same apply to everything inside/outside our universe, including God, consciousness, and energy? Or is it impossible?

All religious people will say is "god is supernatural, so he doesn't go by those rules" then you say, "well how do we know that?" then they say "the bible says so" which will ultimately end up with you trying to explain the big bang theory, evolution, abiogenesis, physics, and philosophy and they'll just stick to "god did it" and keep it moving and not hold themselves to the same ethical requirements that they hold you to.

 

[DoUwant2go2Heaven]

A theory isn't just a theory, like I keep saying, you have to understand what's meant by scientific theory to really have a proper understanding of these issues. A scientific theory holds far more weight than a theory. It holds more weight than scientific law. Think of a scientific theory as gospel in a sense. It's been proven, reproven, tested, retested so many times that once it becomes a "scientific" theory it attains a certain status where it's 100% true. I used to have the same misconception myself until I started making sure I know what a specific word meant in a particular field, instead of assuming what it meant.

To answer your question about matter/anti-matter colliding, no they don't just wipe each other out, energy is released. Nasa is looking into using matter/anti-matter colliding to power the next generation of space crafts since so much energy is released when they collide with each other. If I'm not mistaken the effeciency extremely high compared to other forms of energy, but I'm not sure of the exact numbers. Here's a link of nasa talking about it.

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/home/antimatter_spaceship.html

I think boss-ktulu touched on this point in response to what geechee slim said. Geechee said matter can't be destroyed which is 100% false. It can be destroyed, just collide it with anti-matter and it'll wipe each other out. People interchange matter and energy so there's obviously a confusion on theses terms. Energy can't be destroyed, it's the 1st law of thermodynamics, the conservation of energy.

nigga no matter what i say you're gonna say "that's not true god did it!" anyway and provide no proof of your own to back up your claims so what's the point?

According to your theory, a newly conceived fetus isn't life. There's no real time senses, consciousness, breath, heartbeat or brain. A virus isn't life, algae isn't life, etc.

by your definition, animals aren't alive since god didn't breath life into him. You don't even understand the damn book which you're quoting. The creation story says God breathed into Adam the breath of life, and man became a living soul, meaning he had consciousness and awareness. Like I said, going by your definition, only humans on this planet are alive. Shit any of the great apes aren't alive even though we share 99% of our DNA with them.

This is why you don't bring religion into scientific debates, you can just make shit up and have no proof to back up your claims. I can say Xenu created the 7th dimension and commissioned the maajin Rufus to bring life and consciousness to earth in an attempt to make his 7th wife jealous and there's as much proof of that being true as there is the biblical account of creation.

Ok well forgive me for not including animals my brother. The point I was making was life originates from God. Man did not become living and breathing being until God breathed life into him. Animals also have a spirit, which God gave them. The difference between man and animal though is that man was created in the image of God and thus morally responsible to follow and obey God. Animals on the other hand, were not created in the image of God and thus they have no moral obligation to God.

So all in all to answer the question posed by perspective, God is what makes something alive. Without Him, life is not even possible.

 

[DoUwant2go2Heaven]

All religious people will say is "god is supernatural, so he doesn't go by those rules" then you say, "well how do we know that?" then they say "the bible says so" which will ultimately end up with you trying to explain the big bang theory, evolution, abiogenesis, physics, and philosophy and they'll just stick to "god did it" and keep it moving and not hold themselves to the same ethical requirements that they hold you to.

Well if God isn't super-natural what is He? I mean what answer do you want? There is 1 truth and than there are many lies. Sadly many people exchange the truth of God for a lie. Are you doing the same?

 

[bless the child]

Well if God isn't super-natural what is He? I mean what answer do you want? There is 1 truth and than there are many lies. Sadly many people exchange the truth of God for a lie. Are you doing the same?

Is God really a He? I never knew that...Explain please.

 

[Hendrix]

Yes there are argumens which pose as logic that try to refute the existance of God but 99.9% of the time I street preach or talk to atheist online the science argument pops up.

Do you really "street preach" or was that a joke? I'm being serious.

 

[longmeat]

Well if God isn't super-natural what is He? I mean what answer do you want? There is 1 truth and than there are many lies. Sadly many people exchange the truth of God for a lie. Are you doing the same?

that's my entire point, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove the supernatural. Like I keep saying, there's as much proof as "God" doing all that shit as there is a giant 13 legged turtle with a eye patch and nike boots creating man because he ate some bad thai food.

It's the reason why no one in the scientific community takes Christian science serious. There's no proof on any level on any of it being true. For me to give credence to the biblical interpretation of creation (which requires 0 empirical evidence) I also have to give credence to scientology who says aliens came down and made us or some bullshit like that. Or the ancient greeks/romans belief of creation that said Erubus fucked Gaea and nutted out us or some shit....

 

[DoUwant2go2Heaven]

Is God really a He? I never knew that...Explain please.

God the Father is a spirit and thus genderless. God refers to Himself in a masculine form, thus He is titled as He. And when God became flesh, He took the form of a man. The incarnate God, Jesus Christ, is a man.

 

[DoUwant2go2Heaven]

that's my entire point, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove the supernatural. Like I keep saying, there's as much proof as "God" doing all that shit as there is a giant 13 legged turtle with a eye patch and nike boots creating man because he ain't some bad thai food.

The super-natural can be proved. Go outside, look up into the heavens and read this verse.

"Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth." Isaiah 40:26

 

[bless the child]

You find a God and a Lord God, when you see God it really means Elohiym which is God in plural. Then you have Lord God which mean Yhovah, which is God in the singular im assuming, dont quote me on that. Read Genesis and notice that the name chances from God to Lord God which if you were reading it in hebrew would change from Elohiym to Yhovah. Why is this? And yes im talking to you Douwanttogo2heaven but of course anyone can give their input.

 

[longmeat]

The super-natural can be proved. Go outside, look up into the heavens and read this verse.

"Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth." Isaiah 40:26

Now go read dianetics and read their belief in creation and space opera...neither belief has any proof, any evidence, or any way to verify it, but I'll go ahead and take your word for it.

Like I keep saying, you can't prove that God created anything, because you can't prove God exists. Shit even if you believe a supernatural force exists, you still couldn't prove it's the Christian God in which you believe. Why not Ra? Why not Zeus? Why not the Infallible Cheese Deity? If I was to say, "hey everyone, i believe the spaghetti monster created the universe" they'd put me in an insane assylum. But if I say "Jehovah did it!" I'll get a bunch of amens and shit smh.

 

[bless the child]

God the Father is a spirit and thus genderless. God refers to Himself in a masculine form, thus He is titled as He. And when God became flesh, He took the form of a man. The incarnate God, Jesus Christ, is a man.

God is a father but he is genderless yet by definition father is use to refer to men. How can you be a father and have no gender? Does God refer to itselfs in the masculine or does man refer to God in the masculine? Could it have something to do with the fact that the people who authored this stuff lived in a patriarchal society that rejected the idea of a woman being the supreme being? Jesus( if he exist) is a man and its a fact that every man comes through a woman so what feminine form birthed this masculine form you speak of?

 

[fiat_money]

on the contrary they are all things we know exist but cannot imperically prove. We know when something is right or wrong. We all understand logic and how to apply it. But we cannot prove those things exist imperically...

Simply stating "we know exist" does not will something into a special state of existence. These concepts do exist, in the human mind alone, not separate from it. Were the concepts of "Right and wrong", logic, ideas, and science used before humans existed? Surely not, because humans created them; meaning they are products of humans.

"Concepts" are defined as 1 : something conceived in the mind : thought, notion or 2 : an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances.

Nowhere does this assert that they are things that exist in nature or that they are anything other than mental. You're the one making that incorrect assertion, because your argument relies on it being true.

The fact that you are attempting to compare what you refer to as "God" to human-created concepts, only shows the lack of evidence you have that this "God" actually exists.

 

[geechee slim]

I guess than answer is

Yes you can destroy what you forget, or not pay any attention.

No if you accept God as the life force of everything in the universe.

Plausable if you believe space and time has a limit, and all things must die/end.

 

[alissowack]

Have people ever considered that maybe the existence of God rely on written accounts of Jesus? I'm sure the data is out there (along with others that dispute it). The data for God and science is virtually accessible to us all. I believe the reason why we are either for or against these things is because we have already made up our minds before God and science are introduced. We already have presuppositions and worldviews in place. They seem to be more at risk of extinction than just God not existing or science being wrong. If science is wrong about something, then it is just wrong; no harm done. But if it threatens any presuppositions you have, then one just may fight dirty to keep it alive.