T1B

How are we supposed to know?

mvscal wrote:If we are truly made in his image, then he must exist somewhere.

Man being created in God's 'image' means that man has a spirit, unlike animals.

God is spirit.

Man has a spirit, and as such, has a spiritual hunger which seeks to be satisfied.

mvscal wrote:

poptart wrote:Man being created in God's 'image' means that man has a spirit, unlike animals.

But we are animals. We are blood, muscle, bone and organs. I've seen people turned inside out in the most extravagent ways imaginable and the one part I haven't seen is this alleged "spirit". Where is it located?

God is spirit.

Which is what...exactly?

we are also the only animals who are self aware. we are original in that respect, maybe that is the spirit you speak.

Man is a mammal.

spirit = ghost, basically

we are also the only animals who are self aware.

...paging Jane Goodall, cleanup in aisle three, please...

Why didn't you just cut to the chase in your original post....?

Everyone already knew your conclusion.

mvscal wrote:He doesn't reveal all to his lackeys?

Link?

Belgium.

I hear he likes the waffles.

Where does "God" live?

Within all who acknowledge his presence.

tough love wrote:

Where does "God" live?

Within all who acknowledge his presence.

freakin' rack.

mvscal wrote:The question is mostly posed to those who believe in "Intelligent Design".
In order to prove that theory, "God" must quantified in rational, scientific terms.

No. The theory mearly speaks to evidences of design in the universe, not to the identity or nature of the designer.

mvscal wrote:If he truly made the universe he must be part of it.

You have that backwards. If he created it, he must have existance outside of it. The Big Bang 'fairy tale' (let there be light) literaly creted space and time as we know it.As far as exactly where, the details of his nature, let me know when you get the Theory of Everything nailed down, you might want to be able to understand the creation before trying to analyse the creator.

Some folks are clever enough to say, "gosh, I don't really know that which is unknowable". I can respect that. When they proceed to describe to you that which they cannot know, that's when you roll your pantlegs up.

Leave the theoretical physicists out of this.

If their 'superstring' fairy tales make them happy, it's all good.

Diogenes wrote:Leave the theoretical physicists out of this.

If their 'superstring' fairy tales make them happy, it's all good.

How do you know God doesn't exist in a parellel universe? If it can be imagined, he can reside there, right?

RadioFan wrote:

Diogenes wrote:Leave the theoretical physicists out of this.

If their 'superstring' fairy tales make them happy, it's all good.

How do you know God doesn't exist in a parellel universe? If it can be imagined, he can reside there, right?

mvscal said to keep your 'fairy tales' to yourself. :wink:

Diogenes wrote:Leave the theoretical physicists out of this.

If their 'superstring' fairy tales make them happy, it's all good.

how the fuck do you KNOW it's a fairy tale?

titlover wrote:

Diogenes wrote:Leave the theoretical physicists out of this.

If their 'superstring' fairy tales make them happy, it's all good.

how the fuck do you KNOW it's a fairy tale?

Because mvscal says so.

Or was it 'vague mumbo jumbo', I forget...

Diogenes wrote:

titlover wrote:

Diogenes wrote:Leave the theoretical physicists out of this.

If their 'superstring' fairy tales make them happy, it's all good.

how the fuck do you KNOW it's a fairy tale?

Because mvscal says so.

He did?

Not to speak for him, but the realm of theoretical physicists is more his style and interest, as opposed to snake-charming closed-system, end-all, be-all preachers, which, I believe, was his point, in starting this thread.

Btw, Dio, for what it's worth ... Personally, if more "religious" men would even consider a clue about physics, instead of fighting it, I'd probably be more inclinded to go to church.

MTLR and I are in the same camp, I think, in the sense that science deals with the natural, and religion deals with the supernatural. Theoretical physics isn't religion, Dio, it's science. Bad science, in your view, perhaps. But science nonetheless.

"Intelligent design" isn't science, but it is very bad religion for some.

<-------- The Devil's/God's tongue, bering down on Cordell, Okla., on May 22, 1981, depending on which fairy tale snake-oil selling salesman you want to give your money to, on any given day.

It also happens to be on the back of The Call's "Reconciled" (1986, photo courtesy, NSSL, Norman)

PRAISE JESUS, tornadoes don't kill no one! The tongue of the Devil done swiped us clean, on this here is holy land.

Sincerely,

Cordell, Okla., dumbfucks, who at least know enough to watch TV to know where "God" resides, in protecting themselves.

Where does God live?

How about in the minds of those who follow science, rather than religion when it comes to the choice of ...

"Hmmm, the NSSL says there's probably going to be a major severe weather outbreak on Sunday evening and it's best to stay close to home and not be caught out in your car or in a building with a large, overhanging roof ... vs. ... Pastor Dean is going to talk about how we should all condemn others for their immoral behavior and feel guilty about ourselves. He'll even talk politics tonight!"

Real tough decision there, especially for the kids.

many racks are due RF.

I don't get the comparison (dins) game, when it comes to ones own personal relationship with the almighty.
I'm guessing the confliction works out well for satan and stuff, but what's in it for the spiritual growth of the individual us.

mv wrote:
Could you be more specific?

Not really...Faith is what it is, and for now, Faith is all we get.
If you are interested in why that is, it is well explained in The Book Urantia.
Simply put...The Lucifer Rebellion left this world without it's Planitary Prince, and more importantly with concern to physical proof of the spiritual, our Adam and Eve and their ever growing Edenic Garden in all of it's glory and splender.
Other training worlds simular to ours, which didn't lose out because their spirit connectors stayed true to God during the rebellion, are blessed with the physical proof of the spiritual, which you so desire.

Faith:
You can't take a picture of the wind but you can clearly see it's results, even though some would argue that the damage of a wind storm was caused by something other then the wind, and who could prove them wrong.

Spiritual man gains the power of the almighty through acceptance. No one can not take a picture of the miraculous transformation which occurs within a person once the presence of God is awakened, but that person undeniably experiences the new found presence of the Almighty come alive within them, along with the extraordinary changes which begin to occur once they are rightfully placed upon God's eternal paradise path.

Glorious refreshing of life everlasting

Thus is mankinds spiritual lot, until our heavenly Father decides it to be differently...Faith is our only graduation from this training planet.

Without faith there is only this life to be had.

RadioFan wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

titlover wrote: how the fuck do you KNOW it's a fairy tale?

Because mvscal says so.

He did?

Not really. I was being sarcastic.

RadioFan wrote:Not to speak for him, but the realm of theoretical physicists is more his style and interest, as opposed to snake-charming closed-system, end-all, be-all preachers, which, I believe, was his point, in starting this thread.

Actually simplistic sophistry is more his style and his 'point' was that if you can't spell out the details of the exact nature and location of God, he must not exist. My analogy was that if you applied the same principle to our modern universe, we still don't have a unified field theory, you can't exactly point to a 'place' where superstrings live, and attempting to analyse the creator when you can't even understand the creation is absurd.

RadioFan wrote:Btw, Dio, for what it's worth ... Personally, if more "religious" men would even consider a clue about physics, instead of fighting it, I'd probably be more inclinded to go to church.

Which 'religious men' are 'fighting physics'? Newton certainly wasn't. Nether was Nachmonides (who posited a 10 dimensional space time continum back in the 12th century-based on his reading of Genesis). I have no problem with theoretical physicists, like them, some of the things I state go right over people's heads.

RadioFan wrote:MTLR and I are in the same camp, I think, in the sense that science deals with the natural, and religion deals with the supernatural. Theoretical physics isn't religion, Dio, it's science. Bad science, in your view, perhaps. But science nonetheless.

"Intelligent design" isn't science, but it is very bad religion for some.

No, materialism is bad 'science'.

ID is mearly the acknowledgement that the universe shows evidences of a designer, it doesn't speak to the nature or identity of said designer.

mvscal wrote:

Diogenes wrote:if you can't spell out the details of the exact nature and location of God, he must not exist.

Doesn't have to be exact. Go ahead and ballpark your best guess.

Everywhere in space and at all points in time simultaneously. And everywhere and everywhen else.

Having created space and time, he encompasses it and is beyond it.

And if that seems a little hard to grasp, try throwing together a UFT and a working model of the exact structure of superstrings or something simple like that instead.

A) six days, several billion years...

It's all relative.

B) You have to understand what in his image means to begin with.

IMO it has to do with those qualities which make us uniquely human.

You know, the ones you believe don't exist.

Duh.

He lives in heaven with Jesus, Grandpa Al Lewis, and Eric Clapton's kid.

I say an igloo at the north pole.

Well that is where he goes when guys find out he is fucking their girl

Diogenes wrote:Which 'religious men' are 'fighting physics'?

A lot of them, beginning with the Catholic church right up 'till now with a variety of nut jobs who insist on a dichotomy between faith and science.

To be fair though, I can see how some might see it that way, given that many religious leaders deal in absolutes -- conditions that never change, despite changes in technology -- at least in their minds, even when it comes to dancing, drinking, listening to Rock 'n Roll or eating meat on Fridays. In some ways, there needs to be consistency, especially when it comes to the basic tenets of religion. Science, in that sense -- especially theoretical physics -- has been the direct opposite.

I have no problem with theoretical physicists, like them, some of the things I state go right over people's heads.

Touche. Same here. Fascinating stuff that inspires the imagination in a mindboggling way, at times.

Having created space and time, he encompasses it and is beyond it.

A Taoist would say beyond being and nonbeing.

Oh, and about a model of superstrings ... theoretically, they could be within a milimeter from me and you. We just have to figure out a way to generate 10 to 35th power jules of energy (roughly the same energy output as a few supercluster galaxies or something), to melt space and create a wormhole in order to get to the parellel universe. At least according to Michio Kaku, and few others. No problem. :wink:


God resides in this and all the parellel universes, imo, with the possible exception of hell. The most important place of residence for an individual, however, is in the head, heart and soul ... Chakras ... centers of energy, whichever metaphor you choose.


Dio, have you ever read "Does God Have a Nature?" by Alvin Plantinga?

It's a small book, only about 4x7 inches, and about 140 pages. It's the 1980 Aquinas Lecture, which according to the preface ... "The Wisconsin-Alpha Chapter of Phi Sigma Tau, the National Honor Society for Philosophy at Marquette University, each year invites a scholar to deliver a lecture in honor of St. Thomas Aquinas."

The book is a lecture delivered in 1980. It basically tries to prove the existence of God through logic, and is fascinating. Especially given how small the book is.

Not that as a smart-ass journalism student taking a history of religion class at OU in the late '80s I couldn't find a few flaws, but overall, dude makes a stunning case for the existence of God. And this book generated near-fistfights in the class I was in.

My first time opening this forum. Probably be the last.

But, a couple of points:

To the bible-thumpers: For some reason, you have it in your head that just because people disagree with your theories, that they're somehow out to destroy you.

I can only speak for myself, but am probably speaking for the majority when I say this just isn't true (although the thumpers seem to find some sort of unity in the "they're out to get us," much the way exremist muslims do, which is a great bunch of folks to emulate ). Matter of fact, I'm quite dedicated to living my life by a document that says you have every right to practice your religion as you see fit, and I'm quite OK with that.

The problem is, that's not good enough for you.

Earlier, I used the word "theories." That's exactly what they are, and the majority don't base those theories on anything factual, but instead on legends and scare tactics handed down through generations. To each their own -- if you choose to remove your children's freedom of choice and close their mind, I guess that's your business.

But the reason you take so much shit, is because it's a very rare religious practitioner that is willing to settle for their legal rights -- they want the right to tell other people how to think. They expect...no, demand that people respect their Constitutional Right to Freedom Of Religion, yet they just flat REFUSE to honor the Constitution in regards to Freedom FROM Religion, which is also outlined in the BOR. They have the unmitigated gall to try and lobby for legislation that caters to their religion. They just plain refuse to keep their religion within their homes and in their houses of worship (which they also run as tax-free business entities, but that's another topic...because I'm sure God condones working a scam wherever you can find one).

And this clear example of the religious folks KTOA is why the respect for religious practitioners is dwindling every day.

But they just can't see it, because their religion taught them arrogance, and they not only want to choose their own religion and morals, they also want to choose everybody else's...since they're "enlightened," and all.

Thumpers -- you want people top respect your beliefs? It's a two-way steet, dumbasses. You want to get respect, you better be willing to give it. And it's such a small, small percentage of religious folks who are willing to do so.

And people with no respect for others, who insist on looking down their noses at others, just aren't ever going to get any. And the problem is growing exponentially all the time.

Enjoy your dying fairy tales, thumpers. You earned every last little bit of ridicule and disrespect that's come your way.

Oh, and btw -- keep your fucking religion out of my goverment, OK? You know, like that document that grants you the right to tell fairy tales every Sunday says you're supposed to?

Other than that, I don't care who you speak in tongues to...because I'm an American, and that's what we do. I just wish most of you would learn what being an American is about, so you could return the favor...but you won't, because you're taught not to.

Your religion was doomed from the onset, and with the rapidly expanding population and communications, that process is being sped up all the time. It's a self-defeating mindset...but it looks good on you.

Oh, and my otrher point --

Anybody else notice how the anti-traditional-religion people here make their points fairly eloquently, intelligently, and concisely, while the "defenders of the faith" would have zero chance of passing a third-grade spelling and grammar class, no doubt due to a lack of education and intelligence?


Strange coincidence, that.

Dinsdale wrote:To the atheists: For some reason, you have it in your head that just because people disagree with your theories, that they're somehow out to destroy you.

I can only speak for myself, but am probably speaking for the majority when I say this just isn't true (although the atheists seem to find some sort of unity in the "they're out to get us," much the way exremist muslims do, which is a great bunch of folks to emulate ). Matter of fact, I'm quite dedicated to living my life by a document that says you have every right to practice your irreligion as you see fit, and I'm quite OK with that.

The problem is, that's not good enough for you.

Earlier, I used the word "theories." That's exactly what they are, and the hysterical minority don't base those theories on anything factual, but instead on sophistry and sloppy thinking. To each their own -- if you choose to remove your children's freedom of choice and close their mind, I guess that's your business.

But the reason you take so much shit, is because it's a very rare atheist that is willing to settle for their legal rights -- they want the right to tell other people how to think. They expect...no, demand that people respect their 'Constitutional Right' to Freedom From Religion, yet they just flat REFUSE to honor the Constitution in regards to Freedom OF Religion, which is ACTUALLY outlined in the BOR. They have the unmitigated gall to try and lobby for judicial decisions that cater to their anti-religion. They just plain refuse to keep their atheism within their homes....

It reads better this way, actually being factual and all. BTW, there is no 'freedom from religion' in the BOR.

And the difference is that instead of some sinister plot to try to inject Christianity or whatever into the public square, there is in truth an active working bias towards atheism and materialism and against people of faith.

Dinsdale wrote:Oh, and my otrher point --

Anybody else notice how the anti-traditional-religion people here make their points fairly eloquently, intelligently, and concisely, while the "defenders of the faith" would have zero chance of passing a third-grade spelling and grammar class, no doubt due to a lack of education and intelligence?

I've noticed the average third grader could probably see through your bullshit spin.

Settle for that?

Would you recognize him even if someone could tell you definitivly where he lives mv?

Mike the Lab Rat Wrote:
A whole lot more painful than fire and pitchforks...

And the "how the sad and sorry hell bound individual beings, face to face with God's glorious truth, will cast the horrible final judgement upon themselves" part is freaky awesome.

I am not worthy I am not worthy loses all of it's humor at that terrible for them time.

And Din's; as per usual, you know shit about what true Christains are all about.
You use the weaknesses of posers, to condemn all others, as well as deprive yourself.

Good Luck with that.

My first time opening this forum. Probably be the last.

Works for me. :wink:

And Din's; as per usual, you know shit about what true Christains are all about.
You use the weaknesses of posers, to condemn all others, as well as deprive yourself.

TL, I didn't read a condemnation of "all others". I read a condemnation - a good one - of the weak posers, as you put it.

mvscal wrote:Are you so petrified of your own mortality that you need to cling to childish fairy tales?

Given you're one of Bush and Cheney's biggest defenders in here, you must be petrified as well...

Dinsdale wrote:They expect...no, demand that people respect their Constitutional Right to Freedom Of Religion, yet they just flat REFUSE to honor the Constitution in regards to Freedom FROM Religion, which is also outlined in the BOR.

Freedom from religion...?

Do you think the 'thumpers' have been trying to establish the type of state religion that the constitution clearly intended to halt.

Yes, and the judges have twisted their rulings over the last 40 yrs to thwart the aggression of the dreaded thumpers.

bwa..... ha .....

Reality, please find Dinsdale.

PSU Wrote:
TL, I didn't read a condemnation of "all others". I read a condemnation - a good one - of the weak posers, as you put it.

I must of missed it.

All I am gonna say is christianity is based on god fucking some other dude's girl

poptart wrote:Do you think the 'thumpers' have been trying to establish the type of state religion that the constitution clearly intended to halt.

Oh really?

Sincerely, no real beer in Oklahoma, unless you want to buy that thar "six point" beer in a liquor store. And only in "imports," like Rolling Rock and Shiner Bock and that other heathenistic swill from Germany, Holland and the Czech Republic. And only warm. God doesn't like cold, strong beer being available for sale in these here parts. You buy what God wants -- 3.2 beer, in every bar, and you'll like it.

Oh, and God doesn't want liquor stores open past 9 p.m. or open on holidays either.

Sincerely,

Oklahoma thumper, who seems to enjoy discouraging economic development because of his idiotic interpretation of "sin."

Nevermind that his breathren in fellow red state, Kansas have completely different liquor laws. Oh, and that other red state, Missouri? Heathens, all, except when they vote for George Bush.

P.S. If we had our way, we'd be checking into everyone's bedrooms as well. That "activist" Supreme Court has turned against God by not allowing the police to arrest everyone who isn't having sex with their legal wives or husbands in the Missionary Position, with the Man on top. Oh, and we'd also like to make it illegal for an unmarried man and woman to live together, if we had our way. Arrest every last one of those sinners. It's what God wants. Amen!


Seriously, pop, why don't you move up here, and get away from all those lefties in Texas, with their real-beer, sinful ways? You'd be pretty comfortable in Tulsa, more comfortable in OKC.