End of the Universe Part Two

If god does not rule over our world now aren't prayers and his rules irrelevant?

Don't get too angry over the woman comment. I was sliding through the history of man and what the definition of evil is or was and has been. In reality I LOVE women. They can't help being evil. ;) See your icon proves it, a burning demon!!! Are you projecting Satan?

If god had a plan for Satan then I think Satan has already won. As supreme ruler he can make Satan disappear into the void created by the faster than light experiment.

The idea of god doesn't bother me. The idea that man creates a rule set that is absolute does. In choosing man to propagate his true word, god makes the ultimate mistake, and thus seems not only fallible but grossly negligent. ;)

Quote:

---

Do you not acknowledge spritis then, the occult or hauntings?

---

Moira,
As a general rule, no. Just keep in mind, I'm a bit of a doubting thomas.
I do believe there is a negative force in the galaxy but, not the "evil" kind you're thinking of. Generally speaking, I'm talking about matter/energy and such. However, I don't think there are little satanic quarks running around the universe turning protons into sinners. :lildevil:

I'm not angry over the woman comment :) And sure, there's a point in supplication and prayers. When we reach Armageddon, we want to be the chosen ones to live on a paradise earth when God ejects Satan. Satan may have won a temporary battle but not the war.

Quote:

---

When we reach Armageddon, we want to be the chosen ones to live on a paradise earth when God ejects Satan. Satan may have won a temporary battle but not the war.

---

Rhetorical comments, not looking for answers or rationality.

Why does Armageddon have to be in the future? Why wait? The end of the world is convenient. And since there is a paradise existing somewhere in another dimension, Armageddon is the end of Earth not the Universe.

We live our lives to please god. Because apparently he's bored. Are we his children or his toys? For instance the word Muslim means submit, or more accurately complete submission. A term often misused by us in the the west. Why must we submit to a being so powerful we can't even fathom his extent? We are already bugs or even amoebas to him capable only of what he hands us.

With the blink of an eye, the closest rationalization I can conjure based on my created existence handed down by the supreme and infallible, with the blink of an eye god can eject Satan.

I think if there is a god, man has his entire interpretation of him WRONG. And applying junk science to it in the hope of some proof into his or her existence is also inadequate. Maybe god is something we have missed. Like the entire consciousness of all beings. We tend to apply compassionate rules to only humans.

God can appear to be childish, sadistic & quite often belligerent if we were to assume God possesses three distinct traits -omniscience, omnipotence & omnipresence. Those traits coupled with the actions of God from the OT almost makes me wonder who was worse, God or Satan? (strictly from the OT biblical perspective)
These debates always wind up turning into analytical english debates though. Where every sentence begins with "well define (word)...." Good, evil & perfect are three of the toughest words to assign any kind of absolute value to - simply because they don't hold any absolute value (IMO).
The point of me saying all this is because, if we bicker over our own language and its structure, - how the hell will we ever trully define a "God" that we all agree on, let alone have any chance of discovering it's existence.

definition of god: something that is.

Is: something derived from thought

Thought: something that is.

;)

Sure Armageddon is the end of the earth not the universe.

One interesting fact - science agrees that for something to be considered as fact, it has to have a chance factor of less than 10^50. Scientists themselves have said that for all the factors to come together to create the world as we know it, the odds are something like 10^113 - way above what they consider could have happened randomly.

Quote:

---

science agrees that for something to be considered as fact, it has to have a chance factor of less than 10^50.

---

Where does that come from?

I read it in a book on creation vs evolution. It was criticising Prof Darwin's theories. However, the prinicple is simple. If you came across a pile of 10p pieces on the ground, neatly stacked up, would you think they'd got there by chance? Hardly! And that's just a simple example, it's nothing compared to the order and complexity of the universe!

Moira,

What you are referring to is often called "The Ultimate Boeing 747" argument. The argument compares the probability of life originating on Earth to the probability of a hurricane sweeping through a scrapyard and, by doing so, assembling a completely functioning Boeing 747. It's a nice analogy, but it only shows one thing: that you do not understand even the most basic principles of evolution.

"It could not have come about by chance, thus there must be a creator" is not only the wrong argument (as the Darwinian explanation is the exact opposite of chance; by referring to chance, you're only attacking what you wrongfully think is Darwinian evolution, not real Darwinisn), it is also logically flawed (it's of the order of the "If it rains, the streets get wet. The streets are wet, thus it rained" argument).

You are quick to bash people for "invading your religious domain" or "making fun of it", yet you have no problem with stepping on the scientific territory while ignoring even basic principles? I'm not a scientist, and even I feel insulted by your babbling...