I said thoughts require time and that free will required thought. Without time you can't think. If time were frozen nothing would change. For god to exist outside time time would have to be a fourth dimension which we are always moving through. To us, time is constantly changine but to god who is outside of it and can see all of time always looking the same to him because he's outside looking in.

For god to have free will in this sense he would need to be inside another dimension of time winch contains all the dimensions he created.

Oh and since we cannot study god or perform tests on him we are forced to make assumptions based on login and observations.

You've argues one of my points.. god is still denied free will twice.



Edit: Are you talking about me? If you want i'll stop. I was just defending my original post which was quite obviously my own opinion and beliefs.


------------------
╔═════════════╦══════════λ ; 2;═══════╗
║ TheJkWhoSaysNi║ -----@% (Snail racing. ) .║
╠═════════════╩══════════λ ; 2;═══════╣
║Warning: This post may contain traces of nut║
╚════════════════════════λ ; 2;═══════╝


[This message has been edited by TheJkWhoSaysNi (edited August 21, 2004).]

Based on what? If time is frozen, it still exists, yes? That's different than time not existing. See the difference?
Very good. Let's look at this farther. In 2-D, a "person" in a square could not get out, nor could one on the outside see in. Yet we, in the 3rd dimension can see those both inside *and* outside the square.
(Of course, a 2nd dimension hasn't been shown to exist in the manner I've illustrated. It is mostly a reference to geometrical shapes and linear measuring.)

So again... how exactly have we studied absence of time, and how such an existance could/would be?
(This might be a good place to consider the theory of relativity.) No. I was talking to anyone in general, in regards to the link I posted to another site (and a member of it; not related to anyone here).
Though I must admit; Massassi's religious topics have been far less flame-warish recently than they have been in the past. I just don't want religious-debate.com to look like Massassi's past "incidents."

------------------
For a healty meal, eat mashed potatoes, peas, and catloaf.
Massassi's cuttin' into my free time, man.
Valuable Life Lesson: Frog + Potato Gun = Blindness
Worship Examples - Christians' love for God should be seen and heard, not merely talked about. It is through actions that one is determined to be Christian, not through words. Words (and thoughts, as well) deceive even one's own self, but the heart speaks truth.

[This message has been edited by DogSRoOL (edited August 21, 2004).]

Unless your dad is a priest, or you were about to die at birth, I don't think that counts. Unless it does. You Baltic types are weird.

You've changed Dogsrool, and definitely for the better. What brought it about?

------------------
Superstition brings bad luck.
-Raymond Smullyan, 5000B.C.

Alright, I'm too tired to go and read through this entire thread. I'll just clarify a few things from my last post;

I didn't explain myself very well, and didn't mean to come across the way I did. What I meant was, you can't prove Evolution, and you can't prove God's existence. So saying that the big bang theory, or the theory of Evolution disproves God's existence, you're wrong. I'm not telling you God's existence is fact, and I'm not telling you that your theories are wrong. I'm just saying it's pointless to argue either side, as neither side can be proven. And regardless, neither side would disprove the other anyway.

I'm too tired to say much else right now. I'll read the rest of the thread later, but right now I lack the brainpower.

------------------
Moo.

That forum you linked to talks muchly about Wiccan, like I said.

Also I post you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism

This talks about how 'paganism' was never a single religion in the same way Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or Wicca was.

What exactly do you mean "You can't prove evolution"? What exactly do you want?

How do you know that you exist? How do you prove that?

I have proved the theory of evolution using logic. You can prove it using observation of fossils, and you can prove using mathematical computer models.
You can't do any of that with 'God'.

There is no logic in God. There is no observation of God. There is no mathematics of God.
Stop trying to compare religion and science. There is no 'God' in science.



Yeah, whereas 'heathen' sort of is a derogatory term for non-Christian, nowadays 'Pagan' is sort of seen as a rebellious term for non-Christian. It's a bit silly, really.

[This message has been edited by Mort-Hog (edited August 21, 2004).]

I'm not sure what you mean, so I can't really answer.

Although the Wiccan posting there seems to also refer to himself as Pagan. Perhaps I'll start a thread and ask him his "offical" stance.

------------------
For a healty meal, eat mashed potatoes, peas, and catloaf.
Massassi's cuttin' into my free time, man.
Valuable Life Lesson: Frog + Potato Gun = Blindness
Worship Examples - Christians' love for God should be seen and heard, not merely talked about. It is through actions that one is determined to be Christian, not through words. Words (and thoughts, as well) deceive even one's own self, but the heart speaks truth.

[This message has been edited by DogSRoOL (edited August 21, 2004).]

No. Thoughts are a physical action of the brain. If you want to argue that, fine, but assumption is the wrong word.


------------------
WOOSH|-----@%

Really? Let's review. (If I'm wrong about something I assert about you, correct me.)

You assume there is no spiritual "side." (Or whatever word you want to use.)
You assume that if there was a spiritual side, such beings could not think.
Therefore, God, as a spirit, can't think.

Does that about cover it?

------------------
For a healty meal, eat mashed potatoes, peas, and catloaf.
Massassi's cuttin' into my free time, man.
Valuable Life Lesson: Frog + Potato Gun = Blindness
Worship Examples - Christians' love for God should be seen and heard, not merely talked about. It is through actions that one is determined to be Christian, not through words. Words (and thoughts, as well) deceive even one's own self, but the heart speaks truth.

[This message has been edited by DogSRoOL (edited August 21, 2004).]

Let me correct that for you.

IF god has no PHYSICAL form THEN he has no MEANS by which to THINK.

The only "assumption" here is that you need a physical form with which to think, but as I said, assumption is the wrong word. I would call it a "scientifically supported theory" which was submitted for discussion purposes.

------------------
WOOSH|-----@%

[This message has been edited by BobTheMasher (edited August 21, 2004).]

Either way you look at it, the world is still going to hell in a handbasket.

------------------
Debating politics on the internet is about as useful and productive as shoving a broomstick up your *** .

The concept that you need a brain to think is not a scientifically supported theory, it's a scientific fact.

------------------
WAITER: Here’s your green salad, sir.
ANAKIN: What? You fool, I told you NO CROUTONS! Aaaaaaargh!

I was trying to be diplomatic.

------------------
WOOSH|-----@%

Two things.

For one, I'm not sure if you realize it, but there's a difference between Evolution and evolution. evolution is when something changes, either due to crossbreeding, adaption, or whathaveyou. This is obviously a fact, otherwise we wouldn't have so many breeds of dog, for example. Evolution (capital E) is when something changes from one species to another (Example being, a species of reptile evolving into birds.) This is a theory. To the best of my knowledge (and feel free to prove me wrong), there has been no discovered instance of Evolution. It can be theorized to be true; But since there is no hard evidence, it CANNOT BE PROVEN. You can guess all you want, even call it fact if you feel like it. But until there is actual evidence of such a thing occuring, it can't be proven. It's just like theorizing life on other planets; It might make some sense, and it might be possible. But until we find another planet with life on it, we can't call it fact.

The other thing is, even if the theory of Evolution turns out to be true, how does that mean God doesn't exist? Like Darko said, "You're like someone who claims that a hammer built a house and thus the carpenter is unnecessary."

I'm not telling you Evolution isn't true, and I'm not telling you God exists. I'm just saying that it's pointless to argue either side, because neither of them have yet been proven to exist. And there's nothing saying that God didn't use Evolution in the first place, so how do we know they aren't both right?

[Edit: And don't tell me to "Stop trying to compare science and religion." when you were the one that started the arguement.]

------------------
Moo.

[This message has been edited by A_Big_Fat_CoW (edited August 21, 2004).]

I have never heard the "evolution vs Evolution" thing before. I think that is pretty much nonsense.

"something changes due to crossbreading or adaptation".

Adaptation? Adaptation is natural selection and that is exactly what Darwin's theory is, and that is exactly what I have been talking about here. I don't know what you're talking about, but Darwin's theory of natural selection is what "evolution" is.

"when a species changing into another, like a reptile changing into a bird".

I'm assuming that you understand and agree with my horse example, explaining how horses' legs have gotten longer.

Now imagine that same process occuring in sea animals. Some random mutation in some fish-like creature allows it to breathe air, as well as swim. Clearly it can't "walk", but it can certainly wriggle across small distances to escape sea predators and to get to nearby places with more food. This fish-type creature can survive better than non-land-wriggling fish because it can get more food, and so will spread its genes. But, as there is no competition for food, the non-land-wriggling fish do not die out, they simply coexist, for now. The land-wriggling fish just has a higher probability of reproducing. Now, much later, a random mutation in the land-wriggling fish causes it to have something more resembling legs, so it can wriggle a bit faster. The slow-land-wriggling fish will be more likely to be eaten by land predators, and the fast-land-wriggling fish be more likely to escape them and be able to travel further.

Here you have the early beginnings of reptiles, being able to survive in the sea and on land. This is no different from the horse thing, and why should it be? There is no reason why there should be a solid boundry "this is a fish and this is a reptile".
If you look at, say, a Lion and a Panther, you can see how the two completely separate animals probably evolved from one creature a long time ago. Whereas one line of evolution led to a strong, aggressive, heavy creature with large teeth and sharp claws (the modern day lion), another line of evolution led to a nimble, stealthy creature with black fur to blend into the night. All life on Earth is a continuous spectrum.
Yes, the process does take a long time, and there are far more 'failures' than there are successes. Even the wriggling fish thing I outlined is very accelerated, and there would have been hundreds of evolutionary 'steps' in that process. Why do you expect there to be such a solid boundary between animals?
Cross-breeding is significant, but something quite different and not really immediately related to natural selection.


As for your house-without-a-carpenter.. That isn't really a very good analogy.. The Earth is not like a house, the Earth wasn't built, it wasn't created. The Earth is a result of the collision of gasses after the rapid expansion of the Sun, resulting in a denser sphere of matter collecting more as it went on. There is no 'God' in that process. You can go back all you want, the beginning of the Sun, the beginning of the galaxy, there is no 'God' in that process. Like I said in the other post, 'God' is only necessary for the Big Bang, and for events within black holes. Why? Because that is stuff we don't understand. 'God' has always been a way of saying "we don't understand it".

Why does the Earth travel around the Sun? Before, 'God did it' was an acceptable answer. Now, it is the force of gravity.
How does light from the Sun reach Earth? Before, 'God did it' was an acceptable answer. Now, it is the properties of electromagnetic radiation.
As scientific understanding has increased, the usefulness of God has decreased because 'God' has always been a way of saying 'we don't understand it'.

A good scientist will never reserve to the concept of 'God'. Instead of saying "oh, errr.. God did it", why not say "I don't know. I don't understand it."?

Events occur based on cause and effect (more or less). A carbon atom collides with two oxygen atoms and forms a CO2 molecule. There is no 'God' in that.

Tell me where exactly 'God' is necessary, other than the Big Bang and black holes. (and even those two are beginning to be explainable).

[This message has been edited by Mort-Hog (edited August 22, 2004).]

I have to say, this thread is by far the most impressive waste of time and energy I've seen at Massassi in quite a while. And that's saying something.

I generally adopt the philosophy of "let everyone else believe whatever the **** they like as long as it isn't directly hurting me." For a bunch of internet pissants to run around extolling the virtues of believing in God really doesn't effect me, so let them do it if they please. They're not going to change my mind, largely because they behave as if they actually know something when all they really have are thoughts on subjects that they have no hope of ever proving. Seriously, shaves those sideburns, cut that hair AND GET JOBS YOU STUPID HIPPIES.

Science only knows what can be studied. That is the cause of your assumption.
Does science study the spiritual? Can science study the spiritual? Of course not (or at the least, not yet).
If anything, you're arguing the meaning of the word "think," and only at a physical level.
I really can't make it any clearer.

Science is a compilation of theories and studies. Just because something is a theory doesn't automatically mean it isn't fact. Fact and theory (in science) are not opposites.
Take the magnetic theory, for example.

------------------
For a healty meal, eat mashed potatoes, peas, and catloaf.
Massassi's cuttin' into my free time, man.
Valuable Life Lesson: Frog + Potato Gun = Blindness
Worship Examples - Christians' love for God should be seen and heard, not merely talked about. It is through actions that one is determined to be Christian, not through words. Words (and thoughts, as well) deceive even one's own self, but the heart speaks truth.

[This message has been edited by DogSRoOL (edited August 22, 2004).]

Science never claims to 'study the spiritual'.

That isn't what science is for. Trying to debate the spiritual scientifically is really quite pointless (having said that, some scientist in the 1800s did claim to have weighed the soul..). If you want to have a remotely interesting discussion on spirituality, venture into philosophy. If you want to have a slightly less interesting discussion on spirituality, venture into theology.

The scientific process is to come up with a theory and then attempt to disprove it.

We know that for all forms of sentience and intelligence that we have witnessed there is some physical form to support enable that mind. But we can't conclusively prove that a physical form is required for intelligence.

On the subject of evolution, it's suprisingly fast. Simulations have shown that you can get from a piece of light-sensitive tissue to a structure resembling a human eye in about 30,000 generations (I think that was the number). The question isn't whether we could have evolved from primordial soup, we know that we could, but rather whether we did.

Science can't really study anything that we haven't witnessed.

Well, it can, if there are really solid mathematical models. Such as the Higgs boson. Mathematically, we know it should exist, but no-one has seen it yet.


But you can't disprove a theory with evidence that we haven't witnessed.
All of the solar systems that we have studied have ecliptically orbiting planets. We haven't studied every single solar system in the Universe. Could there be a solar system with a triangular orbit? Perhaps. But we've never witnessed one, and we've never formed any mathematical model of one. Does "there could be a solar system with a triangular orbit!" in any way disprove the theory that solar systems have ecliptical orbits?

Of course it doesn't.

For all intents and purposes, this theory is correct.


All the forms of sentience and intelligence that we have witnessed there is some physical form to enable that mind.

Could there sentience and intelligence without a physical form? Perhaps. But it's never been observed. It does nothing to disprove anything.

For now, it quite sensible and totally logical that physical form is required for intelligence. There is nothing to suggest otherwise.


As for evolution...
Well, for the question of whether we did.. Again, there isn't really any scientific, logical alternative. Fossil studies can probably be used to corroborate the theory. I'll dig some up if you want, but I don't really think they're particularly interesting. But if you do, I'll pull out some research if you want.

The research I'm thinking of is basically that, if human beings were 'created' then you'd find lots of fossils of the exact same skeleton as modern humans. That's never been found, but there have been plenty of skeletons subtly different to moden humans and subtly different to one another. There have been enough such studies to accurately map how exactly human beings are thought to have 'evolved', with one or two missing links that haven't been discovered yet.

[This message has been edited by Mort-Hog (edited August 22, 2004).]

If God created us then he certianly can think better than us. Mabye this phisical is less of a reality than God's. Ever read Plato's cave?

Yes, I have.

Platoic (or whatever it's called) philosophy doesn't require 'God' either. It only requires a realm of forms. But this is really unrelated, and the other discussion is far more interesting anyway.

... So, let me see if I got this right. You're telling me God doesn't exist?

You're going into a religious thread and telling everyone that they're wrong and that you're right. This had been an interesting discussion until you turned it into an "Evolution vs Creation" arguement. Not only that, but you're not reading my posts.

On the subject of Evolution, your example works in theory. We have no proof. We have yet to discover a "reptilefish" at all. Until there is actual hard evidence supporting cross-species Evolution, it is still just a theory.

Now, I ask you. Have you ever stopped to just watch the sunset, or listen to the ocean? Ever met someone so insanely beautiful that you could hardly believe your eyes?

This universe is filled with such amazing things, and the laws that bind it far too complex. Are you really telling me that this is all just the product of a random coincidence? That everything simply decided to make itself the way it is now? All these laws simply came into being because of a coincidence?

This is where God becomes necessary. I refuse to believe that we are just the product of a random chain of events. I refuse to believe that all of this is just something that doesn't matter. With God, I was created for a reason. I have a purpose here. And so does everything else in this universe. I would much rather be created by a divine, omnipotent being, than to be a meaningless collection of organic matter.


Y'know, this is generally why people don't bring Science into a Religious thread. Because then you get psychotic, religious fanatics like myself who don't listen to reason.

------------------
Moo.

Yes, but these things are based of other things. The sunset we compare to other images and it looks more asthetically pleasing. We created "beauty". There is no such thing as "beauty" in reality it's just how we percieve things.

You, like a lot christians are using god to feel you have a purpose and feel like life isn't pointless. I agree, it's a daunting thought but i simply find the idea of god way to hard to believe.




Google for the snakehead fish.. it can survive outside water for 3 days and uses it's fins to crawl. The fins even have an extra joint which looks like knees. Of course this isn't exactly proof of evolution on the scale we're talking about.

------------------
╔═════════════╦══════════λ 2;═══════╗
║ TheJkWhoSaysNi║ -----@% (Snail racing. ) .║
╠═════════════╩══════════λ 2;═══════╣
║Warning: This post may contain traces of nut║
╚════════════════════════λ 2;═══════╝

[This message has been edited by TheJkWhoSaysNi (edited August 22, 2004).]

I never said it did. I said "Science can only know what it can study." What do you see as "proof?" (Or for that matter, what do you consider "evolution?")
Adaptations are proof of evolution *but* they are only proof of evolution within a species. (called microevolution)
And someone will probably come along and tell me that microevolution and macroevolution are made up by creationists, and/or that I cannot argue only parts of a theory. (Firefox tried that on me, anyway.) And that's BS.

------------------
For a healty meal, eat mashed potatoes, peas, and catloaf.
Massassi's cuttin' into my free time, man.
Valuable Life Lesson: Frog + Potato Gun = Blindness
Worship Examples - Christians' love for God should be seen and heard, not merely talked about. It is through actions that one is determined to be Christian, not through words. Words (and thoughts, as well) deceive even one's own self, but the heart speaks truth.

[This message has been edited by DogSRoOL (edited August 22, 2004).]

When you think about it, religion is rather egocentric.

------------------
WAITER: Here’s your green salad, sir.
ANAKIN: What? You fool, I told you NO CROUTONS! Aaaaaaargh!

The basis of my belief is that nothing can be known of a God(s). Since nothing can be known, it's pointless to try and know. And I am happier because of it. It allows me to avoid these arguments. I'm not saying that a God(s) exist, just as I'm not saying that one doesn't exist. It may. It may not. It's not worth worrying about.

------------------
Baby Mama's Drama

Why is so hard to believe a being greater than humans exists? Look around. Everything around you is physical. You cannot see beyond the physical. Does that mean that only what you can perceive is all that exists? We have five senses. If we could not hear, would sound also not exist? Following such logic, it makes sense to conclude that many things must exist beyond our senses.
Ideas of life forms that aren't carbon-based is speculated all the time. Can you comprehend their existance (if they exist)?
If it's possible (for example) for an energy-based life form to exist instead of a solid life form, why isn't it possible that a God exists?
We as humans seem to be completely convinced that our existance is absolute; life must be carbon-based, it must require water and food to live, it must be within the boundries of time.
Can anyone else see how foolish this line of thinking is? (I'm not calling any of you guys fools or anything; just this line of thought).
What if there's an entire universe in the same location as ours, but it's nature of existance is completely different, and thus our universe and the other are oblivious to each other?

...and you're telling me it's hard to imagine a God?

[I need to be less redundant.]

------------------
For a healty meal, eat mashed potatoes, peas, and catloaf.
Massassi's cuttin' into my free time, man.
Valuable Life Lesson: Frog + Potato Gun = Blindness
Worship Examples - Christians' love for God should be seen and heard, not merely talked about. It is through actions that one is determined to be Christian, not through words. Words (and thoughts, as well) deceive even one's own self, but the heart speaks truth.

[This message has been edited by DogSRoOL (edited August 22, 2004).]

It's easy to imagine God. It's hard to imagine the reality of the universe.

------------------
WOOSH|-----@%

Mort, you kind of missed the point of what I was saying. I was basically pointing out that the fact that we think that the only kind of mind is physical doesn't make it a scientific fact, but rather something which we will continue to assume until we find something that indicates otherwise.

We will continue to assume all natural orbits are elliptical until some unlikely day in the future when we find a natural triangular orbit.

My comment about evolution was that even though it's a real process and pretty much guaranteed to be the way humans came about, it doesn't contradict creationism because of the nature of the concept of a God. Just for a second imagine that yesterday the universe didn't exist, but it spontaneously came into existance at 3am this morning in such a state that it seems as though it has existed for 15 billion years. Highly unlikely I agree, but its something I often entertain the notion of.

I've thought about that before. Sp0Oo0O0o0OKY, NO?

------------------
WOOSH|-----@%

So, how many people are still argueing and how many are just bosting thier post counts?

5000 and counting!

------------------
Map-Review | My Portfolio | The Matrix: Unplugged

Banks and banks of humming machinery! I've never seen so many knobs. We're going to have to do something, Charlie! Try pushing that button there. No? How about that one? No, not that one either. I know! I'll try pushing this one. Hold my hat will you? Good fellow.

3961

It didn't have a discussion. It was just a "post your religion!!" thread, which is pretty pointless considering there's a poll to go with it.

I'm not telling them they're "wrong". I'm telling them they're illogical.



[/b]Right, and isn't that exactly what 'fact' is?

All evidence points to 'thing A', there is nothing to suggest that 'thing A' is untrue. That is good enough to be 'fact'. You cannot say 'well, there might be evidence to contradict thing A, therefor it can't be fact'. You could say exactly the same thing about everything. ever.
Scientific fact has never been representative of 'reality', it has never been representative of what there actually is. Scientific fact is representative of human understanding. 100 years ago, the atom was the smallest fundemental particle. That was fact. Since then, many many smaller particles have been discovered.
Looking back at history and saying "in them times, people believed this.." is easy. Looking to the future and saying "in the future, people will believe this" is utterly impossible.
Today, the electron is a fundemental particle. It cannot be broken down. That is fact. Are scientists thinking "Hmm, well, in 100 years' time, they might discover something else.."? No. Of course not. They are working on trying to discover that. But until then, that is fact.

A similar argument goes to the guy that proclaimed that things might exist outside of human senses, "if we couldn't hear would sound exist?".
Well, it wouldn't exist for a long time, at least.
We cannot sense radio waves, but we know that exists. We cannot sense gamma rays, we know they exist. We cannot sense gravity, we know it exists. The limit of human understanding is by no means the limit of the 5 senses. We can measure a whole lot of things that we can't see, hear, smell, touch or taste.

Again, saying "there might be something we can't measure yet..." is no sort of argument.
You work on measuring it, then you have an argument.



Heh.



You still haven't explained why 'evolution within a species' is supposed to be any different from 'evolution across the world'.
That concept doesn't make any sense.
Different species would always be in competition, and natural selection would eventually branch off and spawn new 'species'.

I think someone else found some fossil evidence for you.
The problem is, though, finding the link between a modern reptile and a modern fish, you'll have to go back a lot of generations before you find the common ancestor. You'll have to find a very old fossil.
That's hard, heh.


But what exactly is the alternative? God created different species and the evolved therefrom? That really sounds like creationists weaseling out of creationism, realising that it doesn't make any sense and trying to capitalise on 'evolution'.


The whole "the Universe is so pretty it can't have just happened randomly" argument doesn't do much for me.
I don't have much experience with other Universes, so how can you claim that this one is so good?


Now, while there is no scientific need for the concept of 'God', perhaps there might be psychological need for the concept of 'God'.

Mathematical thinking of the Universe governed by cause and effect can be quite, well, depressing. Firstly, it suggests that you do not have any 'free will'. You are simply the product of collidng atoms creating chemical reactions resulting in chemical imbalance resulting in neural activity in the brain. You are merely outputting responses based on information recieved from sensors.
Under exactly the same conditions, you would make exactly the same 'choice' because you are recieving exactly the same information and you are handling it in exactly the same way.

Any and all events that occur in the Universe are caused, fundementally, by the interaction of atoms and molecules. There is no 'meaning' of life. Life just is.

Is it depressing? Perhaps it is.

"God" has no value in science. "God" has no need in science. There is no scientific reasoning requiring "God". This is the point I have made all the time.

However, the concept and the illusion of 'God' may be quite necessary to some human beings.
Historically, 'God' has been used to represent human ignorance. If there's something we didn't understand, 'God' is used to explain it. It makes humans feel less stupid.
Now, 'God' creates purpose. Yes, it might be utterly irrational and totally unscientific, but that feeling can have a very important psychological significance to some human beings, especially if they are easily depressed or otherwise unhappy. I'm sure psychologists would have more to say on this.


But the underlying point I made, and still make, is that "God" has no place in science.
Science doesn't need 'God'.
But maybe human beings still do. For now.

[This message has been edited by Mort-Hog (edited August 22, 2004).]

Assumption #1:
There is some kind of God that controls everything.

Assumption #2:
Every effect has a cause; the universe is ruled by rational rules.


Why is one assumption so much harder to accept than the other?

I guess it's because one has some sort of support and the other has none.

------------------
WOOSH|-----@%

Because the Universe is governed by rational rules.
Things don't just 'happpen'. Events do not just 'occur'.
The Earth has orbitted the sun for billions of years.
Will it ever suddenly stop, turn around, and start orbitting the other way, for no good reason whatsoever?
No.

Can you give me any reason to suggest that the Universe isn't governed by rational mathematics?


[Edit: I may have misunderstood what you were trying to say.. If so, I apologise.]

[This message has been edited by Mort-Hog (edited August 23, 2004).]

I find non carbon based life forms more plausable than god. I guess it's because if god is so powerful why would he waste time creating us? did he just sit down one day and think: "I know! I'll make a universe and hide all evidence that it was me. tehehe" I just dont understand why a being as powerful as god would bother with something as trivial as us, relativly speaking. Also, if there was a being like god i'd think it more likely there would be more than one. I mean how many things in this universe are completly unique?



I know i'm crossing into the enemy camp here but the big band must have just happened. Yes, you could believe that it was caused by colliding dimensions.. but what maked them collide? There has to be a start somewhere.


------------------
╔═════════════╦══════════λ 2;═══════╗
║ TheJkWhoSaysNi║ -----@% (Snail racing. ) .║
╠═════════════╩══════════λ 2;═══════╣
║Warning: This post may contain traces of nut║
╚════════════════════════λ 2;═══════╝

[This message has been edited by TheJkWhoSaysNi (edited August 23, 2004).]

This view is shared by Buddhism, and numerous philosophers.

------------------
Superstition brings bad luck.
-Raymond Smullyan, 5000B.C.