ZornsLemon

as a side note some previous posters say that black holes and atoms are theories. that is untrue. these are facts and all modern society owes its existence to the knowledge of electricity and particle physics. It is a fact that observations have been made that are consistent with black holes. The nature of black holes themselves, though, is not fact. It is currently a very active research area (See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_

there is no way that the universe could have had a beginning or will have an end. because of the fact that if the universe had an edge then something would have to reside beyond that edge, then you have to ask ,what is beyond that objects edge and so on. You seem to be arguing that the universe cannot have a beginning/end because time cannot have a beginning/end. Why not? There would be nothing "before" or "after" time, but that's not necessarily a co

Let me give an analogy for religious belief reconciled with empiricism: When I learned Karate, I noticed that there was a metaphysical slant to it. My Sensei would talk about "drawing life force from the floor" and "shifting your Chi through your body" and "releasing spiritual energy through your hands" and whatnot. I thought this was silly, but eventually I tried to accept the things he was talking about. Eventually, it really did feel like I had a spiritual energy flowing around th

What I find even more puzzling, is why, when the question of where is the evidence / facts for the existence of a Supreme Deity - what ever phrase you want to use - is asked by anyone genuinely seeking to find out and evaluate, the ensuing discussion always plunges into the philosophical merits / background - whatever - of religion. Anything but answer the question. The closest I get it is examples of "evidence" that in themselves depend on the pre-existence of a

everything has something that preys on it. except maybe polar bears. One thing is for certain: there is no stopping them; the polar bears will soon be here. And I, for one, welcome our new polar bear overlords. I’d like to remind them that as a trusted Internet personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.

Please, Be Clear, very very clear - My comment is not (once again - "is not") directed at the individual who offered this little gem, I have heard it intoned many times. To me it exemplifies the arrogance evident in many parts of the ruling hierarchy of many Christian Faiths. It shouts loud and clear that we the masses should not worry our pretty little heads over mere detail, we should follow the example of those more knowledgeable and who have the gift of u

Besides the novel, and in my opinion gimmicky, controls what is the strength of this system? It's not that the new controls cater to a more casual crowd. It's that the controls are perfect for games that are more widely accessible, which in turn draw a casual crowd. It's true that the standard console games ported over to the Wii are completely gimmicky (Mortal Kombat, anyone?). Wii will never be as good as an XBox360 or PS3 at playing standard conso

So, if I understand correctly, hell becomes eternal on Judgment Day? Or, once judgment day arrives, if you haven't become one with God then God just wipes your soul from existence? Makes more sense than most Christianity. Eastern Orthodoxy does not have a set belief on what happens after Judgement Day for those not with God. Maybe it's the same as before judgement day. Maybe it's non-existence. Maybe it's something else entirely. Who knows? <b

Explain to me exactly how I send myself to Hell??? Because God gave me a brain and reason?? Doesn't God somehow transport our souls to Hell?? Anyway, do babies that die go to Hell?? ... Why can't we become "saved" after we die? ... Stanley, you are pointing out the flaws with the simplest version of Christianity. You notice all the contradictions and downright silliness, and you're completely correct. That doesn't mean Chris

i am supposed to listen to some pope when i don't believe the Catholic church is a Christian church. the Catholics are the church isn't Augustine was before the reformation; even before the schism. What he was saying doesn't really have to do with different denominations, but different levels of fundamentalism. He's basically warning that the faithful should not to be so fundamental in their beliefs that they wander away from

for proof of god i again turn to water, salt, and ice water is made of hydrogen and oxygen which is an explosive. salt is sodium and cloride sodium explodes, burns in water. cloride is a posion. both of these are needed by all/most life on the planet ice is the only solid that floats in it's liquid form. Except maybe dry ice. but i have never seen the solid form of dry ice. what we use is the liquid form of CO2. </di

No i just have no belief. If some people need to make a fire out of my words then, don't blame me. I just stated my position and belief. Fight your own religious wars, lol Marcus Heh, sorry, I guess "incendiary" was an inappropriate term. I meant only that absolute statements regarding what is and is not fiction will evoke passionate responses, not that you were intentionally stirring anything up. <br

Suit yourself. I intend to live forever as an android, personally.

...one thing he claims is that America's individualistic conception of equality does little more than leave us equally weak. I'd like to add my own comment on individualism here. The big thing that socialists miss, IMO, is the effect of population size. I completely agree that individualism fails when we're talking about thousands of people. No strength, no power, no unity of purpose, everyone equally weak. The reason why individu

I just wonder how many individuals would chose GOD if there weren't any outside influence . I suggest that the idea of God is an indoctrination forced upon children and the weak minded adults in society. God does not exist, so any other explanation is a fiction. Marcus Wow, very incendiary. I love it. Okay, let me define God

ZornsLemon, you're a person after my own heart. i see these stories and i cannot believe they are factually accurate because of all the evidence to the contrary. but if i have left anyone with the impression that i view them as worthless children's fantasies, you have my deepest apologies. I just always find it sad that good theological debate always boils down to factual accuracy. Especially since non-literalism has been accepted by the chur

The greatest trick that Man has ever pulled is making others believe in God How so? I think the history of religion shows that a majority of people are inclined to believe in higher powers, without pressure from a single malign force. That isn't to say that they're RIGHT, of course. Not everyone is a great thinker. Not everyone looks at the world with a skeptical mind. There are many people who believe what they believe because they found t

I highly doubt skeptics are going to be less skeptical with more detail. The purpose of the Bible is to convey the basic message so that people can understand it. You shouldn't need a doctorate in law to understand the Bible. I agree, the Bible doesn't really seem to be written with the skeptic in mind. It's not meant to prove that things happened, but to describe events and explain their theological significance. I don't believe it is intended to ha

It costs more to make these kinds of sweeping economical changes than most people realize. Even the wealthiest people in the world cannot afford to end poverty. And it's not just about money; poverty and hunger are related to broad political and social issues that can't be bought away. Not to mention the logistical headaches that always pop up. That's why philanthropy tends not to be so radical, imo.

now tell me how long was the first day. where in this does it say it was 1000 years long. i think at this moment in time(not that there is such a thing as time to god) god set a goal to accomplish and when that goal was meet. he declared that a day and went on to the next day. I think it's a mistake to assume that Genesis can tell us anything about the physical or material nature of creation. It's much more useful as a tool for understanding

Is it just me, or does every single God thread end up being a bible/creationism thread? Unfortunately, modern discussion of Christianity in the west just can't seem to get past sola scriptura. "Hey look guys, there's some completely non-philisophical and non-theological stuff in the bible that doesn't match up with modern science! Let's fight about it!" C'mon guys, the reformation was about taking THEOLOGY solely from the bible, not EVERYTHIN

Allow me to give an analogy to answer the OP. It will be a horribly poor and inadequate analogy, as relgious analogies always are. But hey, you've got to start somewhere. Let's suppose I write a computer program. In this computer program I allow the notion of entities that act on a virtual environment. Maybe I also put in some fuzzy goals for the environment, give each entity a limited time to accomplish those goals, whatever. I design a simple AI framework to control the action of

Becoming eternal is all well and good, except that it would fundamentally change existence to such an extent that I'd pass on it. Consciousness, for example, is completely dependent on time. To be eternal is to be static; fixed; unchanging forever. An eternal being is like a statue or a read-only database: unable to absorb anything from the universe around it (to perceive anything is to change, and change requires time). I enjoy being a creature of time; I'll leave eternity to my creator.<br

Nullifying would go away. Instead, your counterintelligence level would counter enemy saboteurs, and there would be a chance each enemy saboteur would die each turn, and maybe affect the enemy's maintenance (more security = more expensive sabotage missions). Spotting a spy isn't all that much different than spotting a saboteur. Since I know where the saboteurs are on my land, I'd like to play a more active role in the counterintelligence part o

In a strategic melieu, with turns representing years or months, no TACTICAL technique/outcome is guaranteed; indeed discussion of whether the accepted battle field tactics of the lower tech unit will stand up to the higher tech unit on a conventional battlefield are meaningless. At the micro level, way below what the game is simulating, it is only going to happen maybe one or two times; then the lower tech force is going to find other means to resist/attack. Witne