God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#572909 Dec 13, 2012
Sharkey wrote:
<quoted text>So "god" created itself out of nothing...OK...
but you want to rail against the Big Bang theory, which is also an explosion "out of nothing"....WTF is really the difference?...
What an interesting question!!!!!!!

A breakthrough for anyone who might be trying to "convert" you (I assure you, I am no such person).

If you can believe the big bang "out of nothing"; why cant you believe the existence of God, who created Himself "out of nothing"?

Is it intellectual bias or just plain hatred for anything that even slightly involves God?

Mumbai, India

#572910 Dec 13, 2012

The above title should read:


“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#572911 Dec 13, 2012
scambuster wrote:
<quoted text>.... you can't prove a negative,....
Lol, I was just thinking of posting the same thing.
It's kind of funny considering how many posters here say the claimant must prove his claim yet turn around later and also say, "You can't prove a negative."
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#572912 Dec 13, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
...I donpt choose what I find believable.
<quoted text>
You're a little late for that. But you can salivate at the thought of my eternal torment as a substitute like the last fellow.
Neither I nor God have any real interest in seeing anyone burn anywhere at any time. Christians can hardly even agree on what hell truly is.

The bible says "The wicked shall be TURNED INTO hell, and all the nations that FORGET God" [Psalm 9:17]

That suggests that it is the person that BECOMES HELLISH in himself and in his mind; as opposed to being driven into literal physical fire.

But I think you are being dishonest in saying that you "donpt choose what I find believable".

YOU actually choose what to believe by describing the set of things that you find worthy of belief. How else do you justify the fact that you believe scientific concepts more than religious concept (if you believe any religious concepts at all)?

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#572913 Dec 13, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Different names, same God.
What's your reason for introducing Jewish bible translations to a Christian?
Your lack of understanding and comprehension is staggering.

The OT is a Judaic, or Jewish religious text.

Lemme ask you something.

What - language - do - you - think - the - OT - originated - from - and - was - written - in?


Please don't answer - "Christian".

Now, what do you think represents the most accurate type of translation?

A. One that tries to be as faithful to the meanings and content of the original language as possible.

B. One that translates the original language into what they want it to say, regardless if it changes the meaning and content of the original language.

C. I don't care, as long as the translation supports what I believe I believe.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#572914 Dec 13, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Has anyone here said that Satan is a god?
Has anyone said that Satan directly contraols anyone?
Likely only a few thousand time, and for me that would be mainly Patty, as I have through sheer volume had to concentrate mainly on posting to her.

She always makes the comment that Satan is the God of this world, and we atheists are listening to Him rather than her God who is in Heaven, and will deal with us when we die (those are my words for what she says). It means nothing to me, and I hadn't heard it much before expressed that way.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#572915 Dec 13, 2012
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually that is quite far from the reality.
You see, a rose by any other name is still a rose. Changing the name by which a thing is called does not change the nature nor the character nor the potential of that thing.
As such, the reference to God, using names that are even pagan; does not constitute a polytheism or a reference to pagan deities.
Let me elaborate:
A spiritual person accepts that there is a God;
The person accepts that this God is of infinite potential;
What can this person use to describe this God in his personal conception, other than words and expressions that he has learned? None.
The "Names of God" are only references to attributes that are perceived OR hoped for in God. THE NAMES USED TO REFER TO GOD DONT SAY WHO HE IS: THE NAMES USED TO REFER TO GOD SAY WHAT HE IS CAPABLE OF.
A person may say:
"God, I call you by the name, "El""; or
"God, you are my Satan"; or
"God, you will be for my Yahweh".
"God, you will be whatever I want you to be".
And all this is based on the idea that God has all potentials so he can be whatever is required.
Therefore, even if the Bible were to refer to God by all the names that are known since the formation of the universe; it would still be describing the one God.
If you want me to respond to your post, you should register a user name with Topix, and use that name.

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#572916 Dec 13, 2012
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. finding no justification for slavery is ethnocentric? Please explain ..
<quoted text>
.. there's a 'mild' form of slavery ??..
.. since God committed the very first act of slavery (Genesis 9:25-26 - the Curse of Ham), instead of offering a person food and water, you are commanded to enslave them? What happened to compassion? If you come to my door parched, should I make you my slave or quench your thirst ??..
.. if God disapproves of slavery, He's a terrible communicator ..
<quoted text>
.. so what? If you find homosexuality disgusting, don't indulge ..
<quoted text>
.. since slavery is based on greed, its practice is very much cultural and the sex slave industry is no exception. What's the difference between telling a person, "No water for you or your children if you don't obey me," or "I'll kill you or your family if you don't obey me"? It all results in the same thing, death ..
.. you've yet to convince me of any justification for slavery and I find the morals in your Bible to be corrupt, without compassion and inhumane ..
.. you excuse the enslavement of people yet find homosexuality vile. What interesting morals you have ..
owning pets is slavery of sorts and being a pet broker is like slave trading. sure, it may be a matter of convenience for both parties involved, but so is having indentured servants/slaves.

we gotsta stop this hypocricy up in here!;)

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#572917 Dec 13, 2012
boooots wrote:
.... if the man makes that decision, is a recipe for disaster, IMO.
That would likely be because you're a woman and assume that the man would always make the more selfish choice.

Mumbai, India

#572918 Dec 13, 2012


One of the greatest problems faced by the Big Bang theorists is that although they are attempting to explain the "origin of the universe," the origin they propose is mathematically indescribable.

According to the standard Big Bang theories, the initial condition of the universe was a point of infinitesimal circumference and infinite density and temperature.

An initial condition such as this is beyond mathematical description.

Nothing can be said about it.

Quite literally, therefore, the big bang theory is in trouble right from the very start.

While the difficulty about the initial singularity is ignored or glossed over in popular accounts of the big bang, it is recognized as a major stumbling block in the more technical accounts by scientists attempting to deal with its actual mathematical implications.

Stephen Hawking and G.F.R. ElliS in their authoritative book The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time point out:

"It seems to be a good principle that the prediction of a singularity by a physical theory indicates that the theory has broken down." They add, "The results we have obtained support the idea that the universe began a finite time ago. However the actual point of creation, the singularity, is outside the scope of presently known laws of physics."

Any explanation of the origin of the universe that begins with something physically indescribable as the initial singularity is certainly open to question.

The inflationary model of the universe provides a possible mechanism by which the observed universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region.

The literal "nothing" is a hypothetical quantum- mechanical vacuum state occurring in a still-to-be-formulated ultimate grand unified theory combining the equations of both quantum mechanics and general relativity. In other words, this vacuum state cannot now be described, even theoretically.

However, physicists have already come up with a description of a simpler kind of quantum-mechanical vacuum state, which can be visualized as containing a sea of "virtual particles," atomic fragments that almost but not quite exist.

From time to time some of these subatomic particles pop out of the vacuum into material reality.

Such occurrences are called vacuum fluctuations.

The fluctuations cannot be directly observed, but theories based upon them have been corroborated by laboratory experiments. What theoretically occurs is that a particle and antiparticle appear without cause from the vacuum and almost instantaneously negate each other and disappear.

Physicists postulate that instead of just a tiny particle, the entire universe popped out of the vacuum. And instead of instantaneously disappearing, our universe has somehow persisted for billions of years.


Mumbai, India

#572919 Dec 13, 2012

The singularity problem is avoided by having the universe pop into being a little bit beyond the stage of singularity.

There are two basic shortcomings in this scenario:

First, it involves a truly impressive speculative leap from our limited experience with subatomic particles in the laboratory to the universe as a whole.

Stephen Hawking and G.F.R. Ellis sagely warn their colleagues who would without hesitation hurl themselves headlong into such wild speculation -

"There is of course a large extrapolation in the assumption that the physical laws one determines in the laboratory should apply to other points of space-time where conditions may be different."

Second, it is actually misleading to speak of the quantum-mechanical vacuum as "literally nothing."

To describe a quantum-mechanical vacuum, even the relatively simple one of currently existing theory, requires chapters upon chapters of highly abstract mathematics.

Such an entity is certainly "something," and this raises the interesting question of where such a complicated "vacuum" might come from.

It is then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from "literally nothing."

Another problem is this:

Does any version of the Big Bang theory, including the inflationary model, really predict the observed universe?

What is finally got out of this complicated initial state is a universe about 4 inches across, filled with nothing more than a uniform superdense, superheated gas.

This will expand and cool, but there is no reason to suppose that it will ever become more than a cloud of uniformly distributed gas.

In fact, this is all that any of the Big Bang theories leave you with.

So, if present theory requires implausible tinkering simply to yield a universe consisting of uniformly distributed gas, then we can just imagine what would be necessary to get it to yield the complex universe as we know it today !

In a good scientific explanation many complex phenomena can be deduced from a simple theoretical scheme, but in the inflationary model of the universe - and indeed in the standard Big Bang theories - we have just the opposite:

From a very complex tangle of equations, we just get an expanding uniform ball of gas.

Despite this, science magazines run articles about the inflationary model, complete with pages of high tech illustrations, that give the impression that physics has finally achieved the ultimate goal - explaining the origin of the universe.

Not quite, it seems.

In fact, no where near it.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#572920 Dec 13, 2012
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
Likely only a few thousand time, and for me that would be mainly Patty, as I have through sheer volume had to concentrate mainly on posting to her.
Nobody made you reply to every single one of her posts.

Mumbai, India

#572921 Dec 13, 2012

1) Without the subjective you can't study the objective since consciousness, mind and thoughts are wholly subjective and are used to study the objective.

2) If the subjective doesn't count then consciousness, mind, life, emotions and thoughts will have to be excluded from objective study.

3) Without the subjective instruments, the study of the objective becomes impossible!

4) At a higher stage in the yoga, the barrier between the subjective and the objective states breaks down and everything becomes one field of forces and experiences.

Mumbai, India

#572922 Dec 13, 2012

1) Really speaking, there's no rigid divide between the subjective and the objective states since without consciousness the phenomenon called energy cannot exist nor can it be ordered or purposeful.

2) Spatio-temporal factors play on the exteriorized and unregenerate mode of the human consciousness to create this illusion of subjective and objective.

3) The subjective and the objective are always mingling in one unified force field wherein the play of the gross and subtle force continues unabated.

4) Yoga breaks down this artificial barrier between the subjective and objective states and opens up the awakened individualized consciousness to the deeper realms of consciousness and energy.

5) The objective cannot be cognized or analyzed without the subjective.

Mumbai, India

#572923 Dec 13, 2012


In "The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory", 1996, David Chalmers established himself as one of the most assiduous, honest, imaginative, and talented thinkers working in the vast and overpopulated field of the philosophy of mind.

In his book, The Character of Consciousness (2010),
he writes:

1) What is consciousness? How can it be explained? Can there be a science of consciousness? What is the neural basis of consciousness? What is the place of consciousness in nature? Is consciousness physical or nonphysical? How do we know about consciousness? How do we think about consciousness? What are the contents of consciousness? How does consciousness relate to the external world? What is the unity of consciousness?

2) Consciousness is an extraordinary and multifaceted phenomenon whose character can be approached from many different directions. It has a phenomenological and a neurobiological character. It has a metaphysical and an epistemological character. It has a perceptual and a cognitive character. It has a unified and a differentiated character.


In his book, The Conscious Mind, Chalmers writes:

"....wherever there is a causal interaction, there is information, and wherever there is information, there is experience. One can find information states in a rock when it expands and contracts, for example or even in the different states of an electron. So ... there will be experience associated with a rock or an electron.... It may be better to say that a rock contains systems that are conscious."

Mumbai, India

#572924 Dec 13, 2012

The author of the antediluvian Sanskrit work, Yoga Vasishta, asserts that the world is relative to the mind and must therefore be mental in basal character if the possibility of its being known is to be achieved:

He states:

"The subject cannot be aware of the object unless they are related. And there cannot exist any relation between two heterogeneous things. Relation implies identity, for it cannot be possible between two utterly different objects. The cognition of the object by the subject therefore establishes their substantial identity. If they were utterly different from each other, knowledge would not have been possible; the subject would ever remain unaware of the object as a stone of the taste of sugar. The whole world is merely ideal. It does not exist except in thought. It arises and exists in the mind. The whole universe is the self-expansion of the Mind Force. It is a huge dream arisen within the mind. It is Mind alone that has assumed the forms of time, space and movement."


“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#572925 Dec 13, 2012
scambuster wrote:
<quoted text>
And you can prove this, how? Everyone has their opinions, and I can respect that. Seems like you're posting a lot of opinions and stating them as truth.
Cellular memory.



Mumbai, India

#572926 Dec 13, 2012

Not only do molecules, atoms and electrons lack well-developed sentient symptoms but also the chemical view of sentience fails to correspond with life's observed subtleties - a human being's unique feelings and his willing and thinking capacities. If life were an interplay of molecules, we should have created life from scratch in the lab or been capable of reviving a dead organism or be able to explain the subtle aspects of life in terms of molecules only. What will be the genetic component or molecule that induces the friendly feeling of love and respect among people? Which molecule or genetic code will be responsible for the subtle artistic nuances in Hamlet or Bach's Mass in B Minor? Can a mechanistic view of sentience account for life's value and goal-oriented nature, especially among human beings? That there are no plausible molecular mechanisms to explain these subtle aspects of sentience and sentience itself makes it reasonable to propose that sentience transcends molecules and the laws of matter.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#572927 Dec 13, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Science isn't built. Try another verb.
It's foundation is a philosophy and a methodology, if that is what you are asking. Is there a negative argument in that? I don't know that "argument" is a particularly apt word. The negation inherent in the philosophy - rational skepticism and empiricism - is the falsifiability of scientific statements, and perhaps the rejection of unevidenced claims.
The negation in the experimental method is the null hypothesis, which is proven when a hypothesis is unsupported by experimental evidence.
So yes, science can validate some negative claims - claims that something doesn't exist or can't happen. Is that what you wanted?
Actually, there is no way to prove a negative or demonstrate it or test it. You are merely hiding behind words.

How can science validate negative claims?

The only way for science to validate a negative claim is to deduce the positive opposite of that claim and test that positive opposite.

You cant prove that THERE IS NO elephant in the birdbath unless you look to see THAT THERE IS an elephant in the birdbath.



A negative claim has no value outside of the positive implications; because a negative cannot be acted on:

Describe not;

Show me never;

Demonstrate dont;

So technically, science cant prove a negative nor validate a negative claim; for the simple fact that a negative does not exist in the zone of what is testable and demonstrable.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#572928 Dec 13, 2012
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
God is of a nature that is unlike the material world of which man is apart.
How do you know this?

Citation please.

For one to say that they know what "God" does or doesn't do, is or isn't, or any other aspect of "God" - is unfounded and misleading.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 min truth 612,173
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 18 min Student 40,490
Free ATM Placements - New ATM Machine For Sale ... 24 min brandythompson 1
The Racism List: For Adult Actresses and Adult ... 33 min Humhainna 2
NBA Robert - Horry Greeted Curry 44 min carolinechen 1
Never trust an American woman; they are all lia... (Jul '08) 48 min UnderstandPeople 127
Passengers in the Motorcycle Dating Sites 1 hr wendysmith0515 1
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 2 hr Lost In Transition 176,904
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 hr who 271,325
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 hr USA Born 589,982
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 5 hr Jac 99,835
More from around the web