Creation Story

[nastynice]

The feeling is mutual (and I mean that in the nicest way).

No, but Jesus did say that it was hard for the rich — not impossible, but hard.

With great power comes great responsibility.

Cmon, even superman knew that!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[nastynice]

Same thing that happened to us before we were conceived by our parents. We cease to exist.

But we've already been conceived. We cant ever go back to a state of having not been conceived. That's a major difference.

I believe in a soul of some sort, so I feel there is something diff from pre life and post life.

Of course I doubt you believe in a soul, so I dont know how much any of that would mean to you..

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[mike_noodles]

it truly saddens me to know there are people that think this way, it really does
There's no 'rule' in the Bible saying His believers need to be poor, btw.

I didn't say there was a rule. But do you not question why this holy book of god was put together (as we know it) by a politician?

[fanofclendennon]

But we've already been conceived. We cant ever go back to a state of having not been conceived. That's a major difference.

I believe in a soul of some sort, so I feel there is something diff from pre life and post life.

Of course I doubt you believe in a soul, so I dont know how much any of that would mean to you..

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

All Life has a beginning and an end. Conception is the beginning. Death is the end. Death to me is no different than life before the beginning.

[fanofclendennon]

According to time as we know it, matter could not have always existed. We KNOW this.

According to "space" as we know it, matter cannot be created or destroyed. We KNOW this.

These means according to natural law as we KNOW it, this universe could not have created it's own self while bound by it's own limits.

Earlier I said this means the only explanation is super natural. I still feel that way, but I guess I gotta give credence to certain ideas I cant really wrap my head around.

Fan said maybe natural laws were just something else before. I dont see in what way this could possibly address these two limits of space and time, so I'm not buying anything, but I guess I cant sell my sale with the word supernatural in it as hard as I was trying to.

I would love to hear this idea fleshed out a bit more tho, in what possible way could some change in nature account for breaking these barriers? I dont know..

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Fan said nothing of the sort. Fan said nothing is known about the first cause. Regarding natural laws, they apply to the known universe. It would be inappropriate and inaccurate to apply them to the (for lack of a better word) pre universe.)

[valade16]

According to time as we know it, matter could not have always existed. We KNOW this.

According to "space" as we know it, matter cannot be created or destroyed. We KNOW this.

These means according to natural law as we KNOW it, this universe could not have created it's own self while bound by it's own limits.

Earlier I said this means the only explanation is super natural. I still feel that way, but I guess I gotta give credence to certain ideas I cant really wrap my head around.

Fan said maybe natural laws were just something else before. I dont see in what way this could possibly address these two limits of space and time, so I'm not buying anything, but I guess I cant sell my sale with the word supernatural in it as hard as I was trying to.

I would love to hear this idea fleshed out a bit more tho, in what possible way could some change in nature account for breaking these barriers? I dont know..

I think this is the crux of the disconnect. The Bolded is not true. When one is trying to deduce possibilities one should start with the known parameters in order of most to least certain.

For example you start with what we know about time to conclude what we know about matter cannot be possible. Except science believes what we know about matter (that it cannot be created or destroyed) is far more certain than what we know about time.

Therefore, of the two possibilities (that what we know about one invalidates our preconceptions of the other), it is more likely that are preconceptions of time are incorrect given science doesn’t believe those preconceptions with any degree of certainty, whereas science believes the preconception about matter with near absolute certainty.

[nastynice]

Fan said nothing of the sort. Fan said nothing is known about the first cause. Regarding natural laws, they apply to the known universe. It would be inappropriate and inaccurate to apply them to the (for lack of a better word) pre universe.)

Essentially, Fan is arguing against my deductive reasoning, and the only argument you could offer is some wacky spaced out idea that let's just change all the rules and call it natural.

Ok, go for it. Knock yourself out. What the hell can I say about that? lol

If you could offer some possibility of an explanation that could possibly render my deductive reasoning moot, that would help drive your point home. Cuz as of right now, it's just meaningless.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[nastynice]

I think this is the crux of the disconnect. The Bolded is not true. When one is trying to deduce possibilities one should start with the known parameters in order of most to least certain.

For example you start with what we know about time to conclude what we know about matter cannot be possible. Except science believes what we know about matter (that it cannot be created or destroyed) is far more certain than what we know about time.

Therefore, of the two possibilities (that what we know about one invalidates our preconceptions of the other), it is more likely that are preconceptions of time are incorrect given science doesn’t believe those preconceptions with any degree of certainty, whereas science believes the preconception about matter with near absolute certainty.

The bolded is true. If not, tell me how not. Tell me how an infinite length of time could have preceeded us today?

Show your work and carry the 3.

I thought we was on the same page, but I guess we weren't...

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[valade16]

The bolded is true. If not, tell me how not. Tell me how an infinite length of time could have preceeded us today?

Show your work and carry the 3.

I thought we was on the same page, but I guess we weren't...

I literally JUST did this. I have done it several times. You have a very selective amnesia when it comes to this one concept.

[nastynice]

I literally JUST did this. I have done it several times. You have a very selective amnesia when it comes to this one concept.

lol, no you didnt! [emoji23]

I just said these two limits lead us to a particular conclusion via deductive reasoning. You said well one we are sure of, one we arent, so the one we arent must be false. Except you are so tunnel vision that because it's not a scientific law you're just not accepting the reality of it. That's your call bro...

Its funny because I was gonna mention earlier its wierd you understand one of the limits I mentioned and not the other, and I KNEW it was because one is established law and one isnt. But you dont think on your own. You should do that. You will see both truths are just as evident as the other.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[valade16]

lol, no you didnt! [emoji23]

I just said these two limits lead us to a particular conclusion via deductive reasoning. You said well one we are sure of, one we arent, so the one we arent must be false. Except you are so tunnel vision that because it's not a scientific law you're just not accepting the reality of it. That's your call bro...

Its funny because I was gonna mention earlier its wierd you understand one of the limits I mentioned and not the other, and I KNEW it was because one is established law and one isnt. But you dont think on your own. You should do that. You will see both truths are just as evident as the other.

I just bumped the very post where you agreed what I said was plausible.

This is why it is so frustrating having a conversation with you, you are very intellectually dishonest. You will admit something and then forget and continue arguing your point as if the other conversation never happened.

Your entire post was basically “well yeah science doesn’t think what I think about time, but all of science is wrong and you’re a fool for believing science. If you ignored science and saw what I see, you’d see I’m right”.

Sorry, between you and science, I’m trusting science on this one...

[nastynice]

I just bumped the very post where you agreed what I said was plausible.

This is why it is so frustrating having a conversation with you, you are very intellectually dishonest. You will admit something and then forget and continue arguing your point as if the other conversation never happened.

Your entire post was basically “well yeah science doesn’t think what I think about time, but all of science is wrong and you’re a fool for believing science. If you ignored science and saw what I see, you’d see I’m right”.

Sorry, between you and science, I’m trusting science on this one...

Science definitely thinks what I think about time. I already replied and clarified what I was conceding in those posts, you misunderstood and thought I was conceding the substance of my argument, but I'm not. Not in the slightest.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[valade16]

]Science definitely thinks what I think about time[/B]. I already replied and clarified what I was conceding in those posts, you misunderstood and thought I was conceding the substance of my argument, but I'm not. Not in the slightest.

No it does not and I’m going to need to see any kind of evidence of your claim if you wish to keep repeating it.

[nastynice]

No it does not and I’m going to need to see any kind of evidence of your claim if you wish to keep repeating it.

I've already broken down the logics for you. I did it using your very own words. You completely understood it regarding hypothetical event B, and so if we call today event B you must still understand, correct? The impossibility of being preceeded by an infinite length of time...

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[valade16]

I've already broken down the logics for you. I did it using your very own words. You completely understood it regarding hypothetical event B, and so if we call today event B you must still understand, correct? The impossibility of being preceeded by an infinite length of time...

And I already broke down the logic for you, using Your very own words. You completely understood it regarding a hypothetical loop of time in an ever expanding/contracting universe thus this moment being able to have been preceded by an infinite length of time.

And at this point we’re just in a never ending loop (which is actually a pretty good example of my point tbh). I think it simply comes down to your mind cannot fathom something with no beginning, which makes your belief in God interesting, though the reason you can believe in God is you simply turn off the part of your brain that refuses to accept a lack of a beginning.