what do u think god or satan looks like

[misterX]

ya you people are correct, and what about the jews? o boy.
and the big bang is a unproven myth and always will be, sorry to say, but if the universe began as they say, there would multiple "centres" (for the lack of a better word,) not just one. the one thing atheist often leave out when describbing either " the big bang' , which is now called the big expansion by some. (another thing the big bang theorist have been proved wrong about). or evolution. is the word 'THEORY" . because thats all they are. theories. But scienctist will always preach what they, think might have happen as a fact. rather than a theory. like the how the moon came to be. they don't know. because they have never witnessed a moon being formed or caught in a planets gravitaional pull. So they just theorieze and people will take that as matter of fact.and as far as the moon being formed because something big slammed into earth while it was a big ball of magma. didn't happen sorry.

[misterX]

Originally posted by Stingy Jack
I just realized what the answer to the rock question was as given by Bwind: In essence, Bwind says that God can create a rock too heavy for him to lift if he temporarily limits his power.

But this answer, too, doesn't make a lot of sense. God has to temporarily limit his power in order to do something that he was UNABLE to do when he was all-powerful? That sounds quite shaky. What if we rephrase the question this way:

"Can god create a rock too heavy for him to lift WITHOUT limiting his own power?"

"No."

"Then god is not all-powerful."

The question was formulated, as I've said, to show that an all-powerful being cannot exist. It's a logical contradiction ... like a square circle. You dodged the answer by changing the nature of god ... by eliminating his omnipotence. Sure, he can do it ONLY IF he isn't all-powerful. But, that's not what the question proves. The question proves that there can be nothing that is all-powerful, or limitless.

can god create a rocl to heavy for him to lift? yes.
"DID" god create a rock to heavy for him to lift? no so he keeps his all powerful title

[misterX]

and as for zwoti saying that people only believe in god, out of fear of death, well thats wrong as well. i wasn't allways a believer in god. and death held no fear for me( not saying i didnt care if ilived or died, but im just saying i accepted it as a natural thing that will happen to us all) and it wasn't fear of dying that made me turn to god either. and as far as humans being the only animal on earth. that knows its gonna die one day is false test have proven elephants are also aware that one day they will dieand as for his claim that we chose god because we get to live for enternity in perfect shape is also worng( probably ) because if as he /she claims he/she has studied religion, then he would know that noone knows what heaven is like.

[Stingy Jack]

Okay. First of all, a scientific "Theory" is different than the layman's "theory." In the language of science, a "Theory" is about as close to fact as you can get. An "hypothesis" (which is similar to the layman's term 'theory') is tested over and over and over again. When enough tests have been completed (and I mean MANY tests), and the results remain consistent with the hypothesis, only then does it become a scientific "Theory". Take the "Atomic Theory" as an example. A scientific theory isn't just a guess.

As far as the moon thing goes, here is a quote from my Astronomy text from college.

"Today, many astronomers favor a hybrid of the capture and fission themes. This idea -- often called the impacttheory -- postulates a collision by a large, Mars-sized object with a youthful and molten Earth. Such collisions may have been quite frequent in the early solar system (see Chapter 15). The collision presumed by the impact theory would have been more a glancing blow than a direct impact. The matter dislodged from our planet then assembled to form the Moon.
Computer simulations of such a catastrophic event show that most of the bits and pieces of splattered Earth could have coalesced into a stable orbit. Figure 8.27 shows some of the stages of one such simulation. If the Earth had already formed an iron core by the time the collision occurred, the Moon would indeed have ended up with a composition similar to the Earth's mantle. During the collision, any iron core in the impacting object itself would have been left behind in Earth, eventually to become part of the Earth's core. Thus both the Moon's overall similarity to that of the Earth's mantle and its lack of a dense central core are naturally explained. Over the past decade, planetary scientists have come to realize that collisions such as this probably played very important roles in the formation of all terrestrial planets".

That is from the text "Astronomy Today 2nd Edition" by Eric Chaisson and Steve McMillan (both of which hold doctorates in astronomy and astrophysics from Harvard.) Published by Prentice Hall in 1997 (ISBN 0-13-712382-5). Pages 189-190.

[Stingy Jack]

Originally posted by misterX
and as for zwoti saying that people only believe in god, out of fear of death, well thats wrong as well. i wasn't allways a believer in god. and death held no fear for me( not saying i didnt care if ilived or died, but im just saying i accepted it as a natural thing that will happen to us all) and it wasn't fear of dying that made me turn to god either. and as far as humans being the only animal on earth. that knows its gonna die one day is false test have proven elephants are also aware that one day they will dieand as for his claim that we chose god because we get to live for enternity in perfect shape is also worng( probably ) because if as he /she claims he/she has studied religion, then he would know that noone knows what heaven is like.

Where is this test that PROVED elephants know that one day they will die? I mean "know" in the sense that human beings know. Not in some instinctual level. I gave you my source for the Moon thing, now you give yours. As far as heaven goes ... no. I don't know what it is like. I am drawing conclusions from the Bible. Eden was supposed to be heaven on earth, a nirvana, a paradise. True, I don't know if everything is perfect in heaven. And it probably isn't, seeing as god couldn't even get earth right.

[bwind22]

Originally posted by Stingy Jack
Where is this test that PROVED elephants know that one day they will die? I mean "know" in the sense that human beings know. Not in some instinctual level. I gave you my source for the Moon thing, now you give yours. As far as heaven goes ... no. I don't know what it is like. I am drawing conclusions from the Bible. Eden was supposed to be heaven on earth, a nirvana, a paradise. True, I don't know if everything is perfect in heaven. And it probably isn't, seeing as god couldn't even get earth right.

He got Earth right. It was our free will that fucked us.

[Stingy Jack]

See, that's another thing. You use "free will". Of course, you can't say that you have "free will" if you also believe that god is omniscient. Because if god knows everything, your free will is out the window.

As far as getting earth right ... ummm ... I dunno. I mean, you say you look out the window and see proof of god in the trees, flowers, clouds, etc. That's all well and good. I look out the window and think: "If I was all-powerful, I could come up with something better than this."

[misterX]

Originally posted by Stingy Jack
Okay. First of all, a scientific "Theory" is different than the layman's "theory." In the language of science, a "Theory" is about as close to fact as you can get. An "hypothesis" (which is similar to the layman's term 'theory') is tested over and over and over again. When enough tests have been completed (and I mean MANY tests), and the results remain consistent with the hypothesis, only then does it become a scientific "Theory". Take the "Atomic Theory" as an example. A scientific theory isn't just a guess.

As far as the moon thing goes, here is a quote from my Astronomy text from college.

"Today, many astronomers favor a hybrid of the capture and fission themes. This idea -- often called the impacttheory -- postulates a collision by a large, Mars-sized object with a youthful and molten Earth. Such collisions may have been quite frequent in the early solar system (see Chapter 15). The collision presumed by the impact theory would have been more a glancing blow than a direct impact. The matter dislodged from our planet then assembled to form the Moon.
Computer simulations of such a catastrophic event show that most of the bits and pieces of splattered Earth could have coalesced into a stable orbit. Figure 8.27 shows some of the stages of one such simulation. If the Earth had already formed an iron core by the time the collision occurred, the Moon would indeed have ended up with a composition similar to the Earth's mantle. During the collision, any iron core in the impacting object itself would have been left behind in Earth, eventually to become part of the Earth's core. Thus both the Moon's overall similarity to that of the Earth's mantle and its lack of a dense central core are naturally explained. Over the past decade, planetary scientists have come to realize that collisions such as this probably played very important roles in the formation of all terrestrial planets".

That is from the text "Astronomy Today 2nd Edition" by Eric Chaisson and Steve McMillan (both of which hold doctorates in astronomy and astrophysics from Harvard.) Published by Prentice Hall in 1997 (ISBN 0-13-712382-5). Pages 189-190.

no there is no difference between a scientific therot and a laymans theory, well the onlny diff being is that the layman is the only one with enough crediblity t oadmitt that he doesn't know what it is his theory is about and the scientist won't. or is just too arogant toadmitt that he could be, which in a lot of casesthey are.

[misterX]

Originally posted by Stingy Jack
Where is this test that PROVED elephants know that one day they will die? I mean "know" in the sense that human beings know. Not in some instinctual level. I gave you my source for the Moon thing, now you give yours. As far as heaven goes ... no. I don't know what it is like. I am drawing conclusions from the Bible. Eden was supposed to be heaven on earth, a nirvana, a paradise. True, I don't know if everything is perfect in heaven. And it probably isn't, seeing as god couldn't even get earth right.

i shall look for it, and post it. and how do you know god didn't get the earth the way he wanted it? hmmm?

[Stingy Jack]

Originally posted by misterX
no there is no difference between a scientific therot and a laymans theory, well the onlny diff being is that the layman is the only one with enough crediblity t oadmitt that he doesn't know what it is his theory is about and the scientist won't. or is just too arogant toadmitt that he could be, which in a lot of casesthey are.

Okay, here's another quote. This time from a Biology text.

"Theory: A testable explanation of a broad range of related phenomena. In modern science, only explanations that have been extensively tested and can be relied upon with a very high degree of confidence are accorded the status of theory."

This is different than the dictionary term:

"the-o-ry n., pl. -ries: 1. a. Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, esp. a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena. b. Such knowledge or such a system of distinguished from experiment or practice. 2. Abstract reasoning; speculation. 3. An assumption or guess based on limited information or knowledge."

You are confusing the term as I use it in the first quote with the term in ascribed definition 3 in the second quote.