S
Sideline
Guest
Forums, as in, “Catholic Answers Forums”. If you really want to be pretentious, it’s “fora”.
- Status
J
joandarc2008
Guest
OK, let me see if I can apply science to the creation issue and then convert it to redneck as well. ( No offense intended warpspeed just having fun with you since this seems like a purely hypothetical conversation)
We are the blessed that have not seen but believe anyway.
God bless,
- The second law of thermodynamics states: “Any system without energy added will increase in entropy.” Ok, entropy is a state of disorder. If I do not put the energy into cleaning my room I guaran-darn-tee-your-redneck-hyde that my room will go towards a state of great disorder which will mean that I will have to put a greater amount of energy in at the end to return it to a state of limited entropy (cleanliness). OK, so you have the Big Bang. Molecules are flying everywhere at the speed of light - why because God thought it was fun. (No blasphemy intended but if you were an omnipotent being with no humans to play with yet what would you do for fun?) So by the second law there had to be a major energy flux to put things back to what we see today: an ordered state (OK, debatable but life forms are pretty complex groups of molecules hanging out doing very specialized functions.) What could create that kind of energy flux to get exactly the desired effect: an omnipotent being, God. :whackadoo:
npatrol: - OK, so we have our proof that God exists and had THE HAND in creation. Now, some agnostics and atheists out there want even more proof. Well guess what? They don’t get to have it. There is this little thing called FAITH. Faith is not taking what we can prove and knowing it, it is believing and knowing in the very core of what we are something we cannot prove. Here it is biblically.
We are the blessed that have not seen but believe anyway.
God bless,
J
joandarc2008
Guest
OK gentleman and ladies I will bite at the argument as well. We are limiting Christ to one glorified body or “corpus.” Lets call it a corpus because I believe Christ is so much more of a soul that can be held in a body. But I am a very contextual thinker. I am sure we have all heard the argument that the first day probably wasn’t 24 hours because of day and night not being created completely yet, blah, blah, blah. Most of us read “Inherit the Wind” in High School. However what is to say that in each of these lobes in the multiverse Christ’s soul wasn’t simultaneously playing out the same fate of the Corpus to each set of “man” in each lobe of the monstro-verse cluminating in only ONE resurrection. This would give each set of “man” a Savior that they could relate to because they looked like them. BTW I don’t believe created in his own image means that God looks like us… I personally believe it has to do with free-will which is a gift that allows to choose him. With the gift choice comes the gift of true love and hence the gift of faith and obedience.
God bless,
God bless,
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
i hereby declare by the authority of my pick-up that the plural of the word forum is now “doohickey” or in the British spelling “douhickey”
not to be confused with the technical term “thingamajig” or the UAPC term “thingamabob”
may webster have have mercy on me.
the lobe conversation is over my head, every time i read a post on it, i can feel my forehead heat up
too tired to reason , check ya’ll tomorrow
not to be confused with the technical term “thingamajig” or the UAPC term “thingamabob”
may webster have have mercy on me.
the lobe conversation is over my head, every time i read a post on it, i can feel my forehead heat up
too tired to reason , check ya’ll tomorrow
J
JDaniel
Guest
warp:i hereby declare by the authority of my pick-up that the plural of the word forum is now “doohickey” or in the British spelling “douhickey”
not to be confused with the technical term “thingamajig” or the UAPC term “thingamabob”
may webster have have mercy on me.
the lobe conversation is over my head, every time i read a post on it, i can feel my forehead heat up
too tired to reason , check ya’ll tomorrow
Thank God (no disrespect whatsoever intended), and the powers that be, that we are permitted some levity out of our politeness.
JD
J
JDaniel
Guest
Believe me, it’s not the conversation that’s hypothetical.
Interesting. The first pin-ball machine.
- The second law of thermodynamics states: “Any system without energy added will increase in entropy.” Ok, entropy is a state of disorder. If I do not put the energy into cleaning my room I guaran-darn-tee-your-redneck-hyde that my room will go towards a state of great disorder which will mean that I will have to put a greater amount of energy in at the end to return it to a state of limited entropy (cleanliness). OK, so you have the Big Bang. Molecules are flying everywhere at the speed of light - why because God thought it was fun. (No blasphemy intended but if you were an omnipotent being with no humans to play with yet what would you do for fun?) So by the second law there had to be a major energy flux to put things back to what we see today: an ordered state (OK, debatable but life forms are pretty complex groups of molecules hanging out doing very specialized functions.) What could create that kind of energy flux to get exactly the desired effect: an omnipotent being, God. :whackadoo:
But, is it possible to derive a “proof” from the negative - from the “I don’t know” defense? (Which, by extension, invariably leads to: “and, you don’t know either” assertion.) The agnostic and the atheist have all of the methodology and science and data that is needed to arrive at a (theory-)conclusion just as science has done IN EVERY OTHER INVESTIGATION undertaken. Why is the “existence of God” the only undertaking (at least, for some) where they can use the “I don’t know” defense and, seemingly, get away with it?
We know and believe this, but, the atheist and agnostic refute this by the aforementioned defense as well.
Many theists have come from the other side. These converts have traversed coming from the I-don’t-know side of the monstro-verse to the I-know side of the monstro-verse. That is an extraordinary gulf. Was it as simple as landing on a heretofore unknown “proof” from St. Thomas, St. Anselm, or, our pastor, etc.? This is what we are endeavoring to know - assuming it is possible to know.
JD
J
JDaniel
Guest
So, Sideline, I guess the pretentious-plural of “flora” is “florum”?
Please read my just previous post. Will you come with us to search for a possible answer?
JD
J
joandarc2008
Guest
Interesting. The first pin-ball machine.
Hey why not. God was a lot younger back then. :extrahappy:
As far as the I don’t know argument. This is what I am saying. At some point do you think that it is possible to find that one “quark” or “ion” and call it the “God quark” or “God muon.” I don’t. I think that God is a lot bigger than quarks and muons. While I do think that your argument does have some merit - we don’t use science enough to prove our point I don’t think our point can go ALL the way. :yeah_me:
If it did there would be no room for faith or free will. At that point we would have a dictator showing us his existence and his power and we would have no choice but to follow out of fear, not love. This is just an observation.
God bless,
Hey why not. God was a lot younger back then. :extrahappy:
As far as the I don’t know argument. This is what I am saying. At some point do you think that it is possible to find that one “quark” or “ion” and call it the “God quark” or “God muon.” I don’t. I think that God is a lot bigger than quarks and muons. While I do think that your argument does have some merit - we don’t use science enough to prove our point I don’t think our point can go ALL the way. :yeah_me:
If it did there would be no room for faith or free will. At that point we would have a dictator showing us his existence and his power and we would have no choice but to follow out of fear, not love. This is just an observation.
God bless,
S
Sideline
Guest
Nope, that would be florae (as opposed to floras).So, Sideline, I guess the pretentious-plural of “flora” is “florum”?
By the way, I didn’t mean to say you were being pretentious. I meant to say that the current trend to try and rework English into a foreign language is pretentious.
And like I said, it’s really off topic.
Sorry, but no. It’s been made abundantly clear that this is a theist-only conversation, and anything that anyone says to disagree is off-topic.
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
Yeah, MY lobes are pretty demented!
<chuckle!>But seriously (seriously?), other “dimensions” are implied by this talk of “proto” this and “meta” that, so I haven’t left out “dimensions” but merely used more circumferential terms which include them so that I don’t have to type “dimensions” any more than absolutely necessary, as “proto” has fewer letters in it.
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAY! Luckily, I, too, am a “libationist”!
Let’s get to it then!
← NOT actually coffee!That makes us sound like some dread disease! Hopefully, then, we’re at least a “useful” dread disease, much like those “dread diseases” that kill off Dr. McSwooney in a very dramatic, sentimental and tear-jerking way leaving the audience weepy and longing for the next episode to find out about what happens to McSwooney’s illegitimate newly-orphaned little son and his poor “prostitute with a heart of gold” mother living in the flat ON the railroad tracks in the “badtown” section of Port Pathetic.
It’s our job to endanger souls with the truth! Though, of course, we don’t call it “endangering”, silly.
And what the proper way to conjugate the word “forum” is is too difficult a mental task for my “demented lobes”.
:shamrock2:
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
I LOVE being pretentious!
…who doesn’t love being pretentious?
In fact, it’s extremely pretentious to not love being pretentious if given the chance to be pretentious!
That doesn’t mean we should actually BE pretentious whenever we COULD be pretentious, but that doesn’t say anything at all about LOVING to be pretentious when given the opportunity. QED! Ipso facto profundum absurdum infinitum!
…and other “-um” words, which sound so wonderfully pretentious!
:shamrock2:
B
Bruno_Schulz
Guest
**Yes, this is a theist-only conversation (as any topic of this forum) and ought to stay being such.
But still, the question about "is the >I don’t know argument< still valid”, seems so get lost, as so often crucial questions get overlaid by off topic sidewinders that hook us.
In fact it’s a very weak and shiftless defence to answer questions concerning God, with a “I don’t know” argument, whilst at the same time we use theories that stand on very thin and breakable clay feet as granted.
Take the “big bang” and similars of that kind.
Ha – try to let something bang, if there’s nothing (just good for one ha).
If a fish is all his life in his aquarium, and he’s an ever so clever fish, he’d match everything outside this lebensraum (ha – German word you adopted) comparing which what he knows inside his aquarium. It might be a huge aquarium – in that case it’s his univers.
For this sophisticated fish it would be ever so reasonable to say I DON’T KNOW.
Indeed it would be even cleverer, that to come up with scholarly theories, that in the end turn out to be oafishness.
Except:
Except of course, this creature had the Bible, which in fact owns the one and only everlasting truth
**
But still, the question about "is the >I don’t know argument< still valid”, seems so get lost, as so often crucial questions get overlaid by off topic sidewinders that hook us.
In fact it’s a very weak and shiftless defence to answer questions concerning God, with a “I don’t know” argument, whilst at the same time we use theories that stand on very thin and breakable clay feet as granted.
Take the “big bang” and similars of that kind.
Ha – try to let something bang, if there’s nothing (just good for one ha).
If a fish is all his life in his aquarium, and he’s an ever so clever fish, he’d match everything outside this lebensraum (ha – German word you adopted) comparing which what he knows inside his aquarium. It might be a huge aquarium – in that case it’s his univers.
For this sophisticated fish it would be ever so reasonable to say I DON’T KNOW.
Indeed it would be even cleverer, that to come up with scholarly theories, that in the end turn out to be oafishness.
Except:
Except of course, this creature had the Bible, which in fact owns the one and only everlasting truth
**
J
JDaniel
Guest
Hmmm. Good point. I guess that what warpspeedpetey (I don’t want to speak for him, but), and some others of us, are trying to accomplish is to provide that the 'I don’t know" refutation is impossible (if not down right silly) from the standpoint of evidence to the contrary. In other words, the “I don’t know” argument is irrational.
JD
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
AH! Vous salaud! You have foiled my perfect postulation precluding plural protoplasmic possession for Christ, positively paining my posterior, and prompting personal conversion to the proper penitential position prescribed for the perennially not-right.
…but I shall find some weakness in your invulnerable argument, or simply make one up, so as to crush you later!
I most definitely agree.
But that God the Son MUST actually look like “the essential bits” of humankind is not obviated by “God the Other Two” not having to “look like” us.
My suspicion is that what is meant by “looks like us in the essential bits” is the key to our conundrum.
But, that’s probably just me being pretentious, again…
:shamrock2:
J
JDaniel
Guest
I still love ya!Nope, that would be florae (as opposed to floras).
By the way, I didn’t mean to say you were being pretentious. I meant to say that the current trend to try and rework English into a foreign language is pretentious.
Actually, we’d love to have non-theists participate. It just seemed that for some unknown reason they wouldn’t.
JD
J
JDaniel
Guest
I’m in tears!Yeah, MY lobes are pretty demented!
But seriously (seriously?), other “dimensions” are implied by this talk of “proto” this and “meta” that, so I haven’t left out “dimensions” but merely used more circumferential terms which include them so that I don’t have to type “dimensions” any more than absolutely necessary, as “proto” has fewer letters in it.
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAY! Luckily, I, too, am a “libationist”!
Let’s get to it then!
That makes us sound like some dread disease! Hopefully, then, we’re at least a “useful” dread disease, much like those “dread diseases” that kill off Dr. McSwooney in a very dramatic, sentimental and tear-jerking way leaving the audience weepy and longing for the next episode to find out about what happens to McSwooney’s illegitimate newly-orphaned little son and his poor “prostitute with a heart of gold” mother living in the flat ON the railroad tracks in the “badtown” section of Port Pathetic.
It’s our job to endanger souls with the truth! Though, of course, we don’t call it “endangering”, silly.
And what the proper way to conjugate the word “forum” is is too difficult a mental task for my “demented lobes”.
:shamrock2:
JD
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
The English Royals spell it: d’Hough-Hyikye. (Through obvious Greeco-English and Northumbrian influence.)
…but they shall soon be eaten by the peasants, so I wouldn’t worry about that spelling being anything but a historical curiosity in short order.
:shamrock2:
J
JDaniel
Guest
Actually, until you pointed it out, I didn’t ratiocinate that I, too, love pretentiosness!
Sorry, having a tough time seeing through the tears,
JD
S
Sideline
Guest
Really? Look at my earlier posts on this thread. Every time I asked the OP to state his case that the moment of creation could be understood, he told me it was off-topic.
And yet, when theists tried to do it, it wasn’t. Strange that.
J
JDaniel
Guest
Perhaps I might be of service: Indeed, it is possible that “we are made in His image” means, (no disrespect intended) He might appear as one of those wonderful, sometimes benevolent, creatures - with two arms and two legs and a wrinkly costume with metallic sparkles and wide eyes, from an early Star Trek, but, I seriously doubt it. (I might have just taken a chink out of Joan’s argument for you.)AH! Vous salaud! You have foiled my perfect postulation precluding plural protoplasmic possession for Christ, positively paining my posterior, and prompting personal conversion to the proper penitential position prescribed for the perennially not-right.
…but I shall find some weakness in your invulnerable argument, or simply make one up, so as to crush you later!
I most definitely agree.
But that God the Son MUST actually look like “the essential bits” of humankind is not obviated by “God the Other Two” not having to “look like” us.
My suspicion is that what is meant by “looks like us in the essential bits” is the key to our conundrum.
But, that’s probably just me being pretentious, again…
:shamrock2:
All I know is, the next time I hear that “I don’t know THEREFORE you don’t know argument” I’m going to crawl through cyberspace, take hold of that person’s typing hands and wring them flatter than day-old brew!
I promise everyone, from this point forward, that I will not reply to someone that insipid (unless I happen to like them) for ever and ever. (Not as pretentious as it could have been, but, I’m not re-writing it.)
JD
- Status