OK..You all knew this topic was coming eventually (1 Viewer)

[Zlatan]

++ [ originally posted by Tifoso Lou ] ++


because I have a lot of other posts?

Because Americans are... well, different.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Tifoso]

++ [ originally posted by Zlatan ] ++



Because Americans are... well, different.

In a good way

We give more money to charity (as a percentage of income) than any other country in the world.

 

[Zlatan]

++ [ originally posted by Tifoso Lou ] ++



In a good way

Thats debatable.

 

[Tifoso]

++ [ originally posted by Zlatan ] ++



Thats debatable.

Now, amico mio, that's just not nice. :down:

Especially from a mod:down:

Put yourself in my shoes...

 

[Amash]

++ [ originally posted by Tifoso Lou ] ++


Now, amico mio, that's just not nice. :down:

Especially from a mod:down:

Put yourself in my shoes...

 

[Zlatan]

++ [ originally posted by Tifoso Lou ] ++


Now, amico mio, that's just not nice. :down:

Especially from a mod:down:

Put yourself in my shoes...

Dont worry, Andy will be running in here trying to protect you in no time



Sorry BTW

 

[Tifoso]

++ [ originally posted by Zlatan ] ++



Dont worry, Andy will be running in here trying to protect you in no time



Sorry BTW

Hey, it's OK.

It'll be my job (and Greg's) to prove you wrong.

 

[Dan]

++ [ originally posted by Tifoso Lou ] ++
OK.

Every thing that's in being now, came from something else, right?
(For example, you're your parents' son).

Now, being a rational person, you obviously believe that everything that is in being now, came from something? (ie, again, you, from your parents).

So everything that gave being to everything now, had to in turn come from something, and so on until you reach the first thing.

Now, by definition, that 1st thing can't have been created (ie, there can't be anything before the 1st thing, by definition).

So that 1st thing is completely unique--everything that is in being is derived from it, yet it is derived from nothing but itself.

Now, every "creation" (ie, you, again, for example) took place in time (had to: because there is a "before" and an "after" it existed)--again except that 1st one.


So, to summarize:

1.It is the source of everything else
2.It is the only uncreated thing
3.It is the only thing that existed (I would argue exists) outside of time.


Sounds like a pretty good definition of God to me.

This is just tracing things back to the 'start' and claiming that since everything has been invented there had to of been an inventor.

Its a well framed with words to make seem like proof, but its similar to St Anselm's ontological arguement, not in the meaning but the wording.

But this basically does not prove much.. one cannot dismiss the conveicability of no higher being by using that arguement.

 

[Seven]

Look at it this way:

put a cup on a table and wait all eternity for that cup to fall through that table. If you've got all eternity that cup WILL fall through that table. Why? Because it's bound to happen at some point. Not within five minutes, not within a million years, but at some point it WILL happen.

So if you start with nothing, there will eventually be something. Why? Because you've got all eternity. Something WILL happen.

 

[Seven]

++ [ originally posted by Tifoso Lou ] ++


53 million American voters (and many others to boot) would disagree.

My last post on the subject.

So? 53 million American voters can be wrong you know. Especially when you consider we don't think very highly of most Americans here. And it's not like most people in the world consider Bush to be a great leader. It's 53 million against 5 billion probably.

 

[Zlatan]

++ [ originally posted by Seven ] ++
Look at it this way:

put a cup on a table and wait all eternity for that cup to fall through that table. If you've got all eternity that cup WILL fall through that table. Why? Because it's bound to happen at some point. Not within five minutes, not within a million years, but at some point it WILL happen.

So if you start with nothing, there will eventually be something. Why? Because you've got all eternity. Something WILL happen.

Not sure I entirely agree with that analogy.

 

[Seven]

++ [ originally posted by Zlatan ] ++



Not sure I entirely agree with that analogy.

It's a bit of an unlucky analogy, I admit. But basically I'm saying that something came out of nothing because it just had to at some point.

 

[Dan]

++ [ originally posted by Seven ] ++


It's a bit of an unlucky analogy, I admit. But basically I'm saying that something came out of nothing because it just had to at some point.

I would be willing to agree with that far more then I would the concept of a higher being.

Cheers for the extra ' arguement ammunition '

 

[GordoDeCentral]

++ [ originally posted by Dan ] ++


This is just tracing things back to the 'start' and claiming that since everything has been invented there had to of been an inventor.

Its a well framed with words to make seem like proof, but its similar to St Anselm's ontological arguement, not in the meaning but the wording.

But this basically does not prove much.. one cannot dismiss the conveicability of no higher being by using that arguement.

Wow you used "ontological", now go read some more Da sein. You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about, please drop the act.

 

[Dan]

++ [ originally posted by Altair ] ++


Wow you used "ontological", now go read some more Da sein. You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about, please drop the act.

Ok

 

[Seven]

++ [ originally posted by Altair ] ++


Wow you used "ontological", now go read some more Da sein. You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about, please drop the act.

Actually Dan had a point there, Altair.

 

[Dan]

++ [ originally posted by Seven ] ++


Actually Dan had a point there, Altair.

Cheers, but I sadly dont know the cure for retardism so Ill leave it.