Is50% good+50% evil=God? I ask this because every thing has an opposite answer this I am confused.

Nope... God is 100% good. The devil is 100% bad. Of course the devil twists things to make them seem like 50% good & bad are God but they are not.

For mankind, there are two opposites that dwell in man's nature. The positive and the negative. Everyone has the ability to be good or not. It is their free will that makes the decisions. God gave man the free will. But in God, there is NO duality of good and evil. God is all good. Ever since God cast out Lucifer and his followers out of Heaven, Lucifer has made it his work to undermine every work of God and God's people.

God is an ultimate positive force, satan is the ultimate negative force, like a battery, nothing works unless the two are working. Somebody show me different

Well, what is it you want to hear then?

No, God is 100% good, 100% righteous and 100% just - and God is not a battery.

Canada sweetie, you speak of the full 100% God +the full 100% satan= the all mighty god, you were right on; when you mentioned, the 100% God + satan...
..

I'm confused... could you explain in more detail?. And I'm sorry but I've been rather slow today.Hahaha

Canada sweetie you need as much of day as night, as much as wrong as right inhale as much as exhale. Now think about the battery.

I get what you're saying now. Wow.. I am super slow today.. haha

God kills children accourding to the bible. So the only answer that makes sense is that god is 100% good.

"good" and "bad" are relative terms though. If "murder" is killing another living being, and your God declares murder to be a sin, and going into another country and killing their people is murder (after all, God doesn't distinguish between killing for "good reason" or because someone wronged you or your president told you to, or someone did something you believe to be terribly wrong - taking anothers life, for any reason is murder) - those who fight wars are still murdering other people, even if they do it "in God's name"... Where do you blur the lines? Is this good? Or is it bad?

I believe in the duality of all things and that for all things there exists a polar opposite. But don't you believe that your God is the creator of all things? Which would make ALL things a part of God, right? That would include that "God" made "Satan"... so in essence, good & evil are two different degrees of the same thing. "Satan" would be a part of "God" and how can "God" not love any of her children?

I'm sure many will disagree and that's fine. But that is how it makes sense to me. The polarity game.

Speechlesstx the battery analogy is a metaphur. Could good and evil be separated. Could the poles of a natural magnet be separated?

Pixie mama, you are right on the spot with your thoughts. Good doesn't work without evil. In fact the thin line that separate them cannot be seen by hubble telescope.

Speechlesstx the battery analogy is a metaphur. could good and evil be separated. could the poles of a natural magnet be separated?

Freethinka, God does not operate according to the natural laws of physics - He created them. :D

Very true speechlesstx. God is something that requires more then scientific proof, He requires faith. But what Freethinka means is that is there any possibility that evil can be taken out of the good... or at least that's what I'm getting. And if that is what Freethinka means then yes, evil and good will be separated one day. For now though, they are co-mingle on Earth until the rapture comes.

Of course Freethika does not really want to know anything, only cause trouble, but of course trying to ask a question where they know the answer only to try and bait others with questions that can not be easily answered since it all requires faith and belief.

But God is godd, all good, but man and all other things have evil in and around them. God has no evil.

As for as killing and death, there is of course a difference stated in the bible between killing and murder.

It's a yin yang deal. You can't have good without evil, how would you benchmark what is good if you had nothing evil to compare it to? Same works vice versa.

Think of god as the ultimate embodiment of good, and the devil as evil incarnate.

Do you mean God is only called good because there is evil? Like we refer to water as hot, cold, and worm. Water is hot because it is not cold. Water is cold because it is not hot. If water was all one temperature, we would not refer to it's temperature. So, if there were no evil, we would not call God good. We would just call God... God. Is that what you are getting at?

Forget the battery and read the bible instead, you are trying to figure out God which is impossible.

Freethinka, God does not operate according to the natural laws of physics - He created them. :D

Speechlesstx, natural law is God, is what I hope you are tryin' to say, if you turn this around, the other way, it is a lie, then, a book was written, to explain how God created the universe. Think... If nature isn't God how could you live without it...


Forget the battery and read the bible instead, you are trying to figure out God which is impossible.

Marily If trying to figure out god is impossible, I see why faith, prayers and believing, have to all be parts, of the concoction to believe what is written in the bible, is it, valid. If Freethinka cannot figure out who is God, How could the writers of the bible figure out who is God. Is it true Martin Luther, heretic translated the King james version of the bible, on a diet of worms when imprisoned by the then king for not accepting the writings to be true. Wasn't this a fact?.

Marily; are you going to answer Freethinka. I will be waiting

Marily I assume You are filled with the holy ghost, and know satan well, if not what do you say otherwise?

Marily is your holy ghost, as holy, as your holy devil? Please give me the honest drop dead truth, or nothing at all.

I perceive that you are an unbeliever, so far you have only been quarreling, and since only fools insist in quarreling , find someone else to debate with

Speechlesstx, natural law is God, is what I hope you are tryin' to say, if you turn this around, the other way, it is a lie, then, a book was written, to explain how God created the universe. Think... If nature isn't God how could you live without it...

Freethinka,

I think you and I both know your goal is not to learn about or understand God, you're doing the same as all critics tend to do - attempting to put us in a box from which we can't escape. I don't fall for that nonsense, because one, God is something beyond our full comprehension and ability to explain, and two, you will never understand God until you know and experience God.

I agree with you Speech. Even I find his line of questioning to be spurious and argumentative. He seems to post whatever comes to the top of his head whether it's relevant or not. I do see him/her trying to paint you into a corner and trying very hard to do it.

Yes, I find it sad that some atheists take such a tact. It paints a bad picture of atheism, and when someone such as myself wishes to learn about beliefs, the shield automatically goes up and I cannot find out very much.

God is an ultimate positive force, satan is the ultimate negative force, like a battery, nothing works unless the two are working. somebody show me different

There was an eternity of time during which God existed without the presence of evil and during which time he was fully a righteous needing nothing to make him complete. In short, he was working perfectly well without the opposites to his Holy character. If we take the position that he was lacking something because Satan and evil were missing from that eternity of time, then we are postulating a completely non-scriptural concept and we would not be describing the biblical God but merely an imagined one.

Malachi 3:6
"I the Lord do not change."

What is the immutability of God? (http://www.gotquestions.org/immutability-God.html)

Also, the Bible tells us that God views evil as unnacceptable in his universe and promises to irradicate it. That also goes contrary to the necessity-of-evil idea.

Revelation 21:4
He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away."

1/3 APPLE+ 1/3 ORANGE+ 1/3 ORANGE= 1 APPLE/ORANGE.
This violates the law of non contradiction which states that two particles X and Y cannot be the same state at the same time.
Like it cannot be rainy or sunny at the same time or light and dark.
Steve:)

I perceive that you are an unbeliever, so far you have only been quarreling, and since only fools insist in quarreling , find someone else to debate with

Only fools believe!! All I am asking for, is to see proof. Is an insult proof Mariy?
Or an insult mean; you have no proof? If so give me reason...

Your proof you will find in my book LULU STOREFRONT STEPHEN A JEFFREY.
Or available from Amazon under the title MY SCIENCE THESIS- by Stephen A Jeffrey.
The maths of the big bang is wrong it violates the law of non contradiction that is why I wrote this mathematical parody of the big bang theory of everything.
Steve

1/3 APPLE+ 1/3 ORANGE+ 1/3 ORANGE= 1 APPLE/ORANGE.
This violates the law of non contradiction which states that two particles X and Y cannot be the same state at the same time.
Like it cannot be rainy or sunny at the same time or light and dark.
Steve:)
Aircloud; where Freethinka live sometime we get the rain and the sun at the same time, we call it the devil and his wife fighting for potcake. Also darkness and light in the same place, was happening as far back, as my childhood twice daily. Aircloud explain this phenomenin.

Wow, aircloud, just wondering what qualification you have to disprove the big bang? I have seen many days when it has been both rainy and sunny. I don't see how your argument about apples and oranges is anything but a strawman argument. It doesn't pertain to the real world. And your first post on this site about numerology further suggests to me that you have no mathematical or scientific background. Please keep your claptrap to yourself unless you have something to say that makes sense.

Freethinka, you are just being plain argumentative. "Only fools believe" is an incredibly narrow world view. I live next door to the local vicar. While I do not believe what he has chosen to dedicate his life to, I still believe that he is one of the most emotionally intelligent people I have ever met, and if I ever have a time in my life when I am not sure how to go on, I'm certain he will be one of the people I will look up and ask for advice. He helps the people in my community so much, and we are all grateful to him for that.

Believing certainly does not make you a fool.

Mate, why are you asking a question about a being you do not believe in?
That's like saying "the earth is flat. why are planets round?"
God is 100% good. Get over it.

mate, why are you asking a question about a being you do not believe in?
thats like saying "the earth is flat. why are planets round?"
god is 100% good. get over it.

Freethinka is asking questions about, the said being, that you quote. I do not believe in, I actually do not, because around me in my country where I live, it is sickening how individuals live, rant and rave 365 days a year, about this belief. These characters are wicked, corrupt, to say the best, devils that use that belief. To literally destroy a beautiful paridise . They (believers) are everywhere, like a bad infection spreading what isn't proven.. I can now apply your last remark about a flat earth, in its proper context: The earth is flat when it is dominated by something unseen and hoped for and need prayers and faith for it to operate. I see where we get our stress from, like Freethinka said, when you believe, it is exactly the same, as hanging on by a thread in the abyss.

Sorry to seem like I am not satisfied with answers, it is just that, as long as there is belief, it is all the reason to keep asking questions, Once you know there is no need to ask any questions.

Why do you always refer to yourself in the third person? Some in this world would see that as a symptom of a mental disorder.

Why do you always refer to yourself in the third person? Some in this world would see that as a symptom of a mental disorder.


Needkarma come on why are you trying to stereotype me as, one who has a mental disorder? Is this the worst thing you could say to not answer ralevent questions.

It makes (Freethinka) I do have a right to use (freethinka) as much as I like, what is in my head is mine, as the same for you... What frightens me is people who have things in their head and do not reveal it to anyone... I look at that to be a mental disorder...

"Respect to a man who honestly reveal his mind"

Freethinka009

Speechlesstx the battery analogy is a metaphur. could good and evil be separated. could the poles of a natural magnet be separated?

Pixie mama, you are right on the spot with your thoughts. Good doesn't work without evil. In fact the thin line that separate them cannot be seen by hubble telescope.


I know this is an old post but this is something I deal with regularly... Without good there cannot be evil, so without god, there can be no satan... Or vice versa. (battery analogy)
I say "I'm not going to heaven, because I don't believe in it" They say, "Well then, you're going to hell!" I say "How can I if I believe there's no heaven? Without god there's no satan, without heaven, there's no hell" Which would be completely opposite to someone with religion and faith in their life :)

I know this is an old post but this is something I deal with regularly...Without good there cannot be evil, so without god, there can be no satan...Or vice versa. (battery analogy)
I say "I'm not going to heaven, because I don't believe in it" They say, "Well then, you're going to hell!" I say "How can I if I believe there's no heaven? Without god there's no satan, without heaven, there's no hell" Which would be completely opposite to someone with religion and faith in their life :)


Self_inflicted_hell, you hit the nail right on the head, my only thing there

Is the big cover up...


You gat me laughing

Excellent. The question is answered.

What's wrong with believing free?
What's "sickening" about believing in a god who loves everyone unconditionaly, who heals people, who forgives you no matter what, who has a plan for each persons life that is better than an average life, who died for all of us?

Cal,
NeedKarma sees nothing wrong with that. NeedKarma believes all people can live with their beliefs as NeedKarma does. NeedKarma worries about people that strike down others for their beliefs.

whats wrong with believing free?
whats "sickening" about believing in a god who loves everyone unconditionaly, who heals people, who forgives you no matter what, who has a plan for each persons life that is better than an average life, who died for all of us?

There is nothing wrong with god who love everyone, he is through and in every thing so is satan, How could you identify spirits under a belief not knowing which is which?


cal,
NeedKarma sees nothing wrong with that. NeedKarma believes all people can live with their beliefs as NeedKarma does. NeedKarma worries about people that strike down others for their beliefs.

Karma freethinka agree.

Why are christians peeved?

When did God die?

How could the real god be killed?

Everything has an opposite side to counteract the balance. For example, good vs. evil, God vs. Lucifer, etc. Everything needs a balance to work in harmony. If there's too much of one, and not enough of the other, it turns into chaos, otherwise known as the Chaos Theory.

Actually, what people here are describing is based on what senses seem to be telling them about this particular area of this particular universe.

The latest theory in physics postulates twelve dimensions and the possibility of an infinite number of universes--each with its own unique particular laws.

Multiverse (science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_(science))

So who are we, as limited as we are to this minute section of this particular four dimensional universe to assume that what our meager senses seem to register applies everywhere? Isn't that a bit presumptuous?

BTW

From a Christian standpoint, saying that God can't exist without needing evil is tantamount to blasphemy. Maybe they should set up an atheist forum?

Actually, what people here are describing is based on what senses seem to be telling them about this particular area of this particular universe.

The latest theory in physics postulates twelve dimensions and and the possibility of an infinite number of universes--each with its own unique particular laws.

Multiverse (science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_(science))

So who are we, as limited as we are to this minute section of this particular four dimensional universe to assume that what our meager senses seem to register applies everywhere? Isn't that a bit presumptuous?

BTW

From a Christian standpoint, saying that God can't exist without needing evil is tantamount to blasphemy. Maybe they should set up an atheist forum?

Blasphemy? I'm Atheist, this doesn't affect me. I do agree that there should be an Atheist forum though.

I don't know where you're going with the comment about multi universes. What does this have to do with the OP's question?

Actually, what people here are describing is based on what senses seem to be telling them about this particular area of this particular universe.

The latest theory in physics postulates twelve dimensions and and the possibility of an infinite number of universes--each with its own unique particular laws.

Multiverse (science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_(science))

So who are we, as limited as we are to this minute section of this particular four dimensional universe to assume that what our meager senses seem to register applies everywhere? Isn't that a bit presumptuous?

BTW

From a Christian standpoint, saying that God can't exist without needing evil is tantamount to blasphemy. Maybe they should set up an atheist forum?


Starman + need - like inhale, need exhale. 100% inale, 100% exhale.

(1) 125% inhale, 75% exhale = explode

(2) 75% inhale, 125% exhale = implode


(3) 100% inhale, 100% exhale = God or equallibrium

Cut circumnavigating reality for myth. Out of the three examples (1) (2) (3) which one, do you choose, to exist on earth?
Now you see the reality... Life isn't about living inside an invisible box, and foundation (JC). The invisible walls of this box are called (blasphemous) believers live in the box. Inside this box any questions asked, that are contrary to this popular (belief) is labeled as blasphemous, I cry shame. Freethinka lives on the outside, of the wallls of blasphemy, therefore I question with such intensity, on a quest for truth. Believers don't be offended, "it is better to know truth than to believe a lie".

Otta186: live on the outside, of the walls of blasphemy, Freethinka agree, the label (blasphemy) only apply to (believers).

"The quest for truth is neverending"

Starman, string theory certainly is very interesting, but it hasn't yet been tested.

Starman, string theory certainly is very interesting, but it hasn't yet been tested.


Really so, tryin' to cloud the situation with 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000,s. :confused:

It "looks promising". That's about as far as the scientific community has gone towards accepting it. There are quite a few people working on it. But no testable predictions yet.

It "looks promising". That's about as far as the scientific community has gone towards accepting it. There are quite a few people working on it. But no testable predictions yet.


Caupchin: they would throw any thing out there to try, to close the gaping hole that is being created by realavent questions, that are being asked about this esoteric (belief).

Blasphemy? I'm Atheist, this doesnt affect me. I do agree that there should be an Atheist forum though.

I dont know where you're going with the comment about multi universes. What does this have to do with the OP's question?

Of course it doesn't affect you-you are an atheist. That's why I qualified my statement with "....from a Christian point of view...." About relevance, the bottom line is that we are being totally illogical if we say that we know the total of reality based on what we perceive in the VISIBLE universe. Like the statement that all things need an opposite or else they will fall apart or go haywire--for example. A statement which if indeed were true here, does not necessarily make it true everywhere and much less in rewference to God himself.

Starman, string theory certainly is very interesting, but it hasn't yet been tested.

It doesn't make difference.
The irrationality of choosing to believe that what we see in this limited area of the universe applies to what we don't see--much less to God himself remains.

Starman + need - like inhale, need exhale. 100% inale, 100% exhale.

(1) 125% inhale, 75% exhale = explode

(2) 75% inhale, 125% exhale = implode


(3) 100% inhale, 100% exhale = God or equallibrium

Cut circumnavigating reality for myth. out of the three examples (1) (2) (3) which one, do you choose, to exist on earth?
Now you see the reality... Life isn't about living inside an invisible box, and foundation (JC). The invisible walls of this box are called (blasphemous) believers live in the box. Inside this box any questions asked, that are contrary to this popular (belief) is labeled as blasphemous, I cry shame. Freethinka lives on the outside, of the wallls of blasphemy, therefore I question with such intensity, on a quest for truth. Believers don't be offended, "it is better to know truth than to believe a lie".

Otta186: live on the outside, of the walls of blasphemy, Freethinka agree, the label (blasphemy) only apply to (believers).

"The quest for truth is neverending"



Funny that you should substitute mockery and namecalling for reasoning. But if that's all you got that's all you got.

Everything has an opposite side to counteract the balance. For example, good vs. evil, God vs. Lucifer, etc. Everything needs a balance to work in harmony. If there's too much of one, and not enough of the other, it turns into chaos, otherwise known as the Chaos Theory.


:D Thumbs up otto186 I couldn't say it better, you are right on.

Chaos theory is a mathematical concept.. nothing to do with too much good or too much evil... O_o

Chaos theory is a mathematical concept.. nothing to do with too much good or too much evil.... O_o

I have had it described to me differently. You are probably right, but I have had a Pastor describe good vs. evil to me as the chaos theory. But its OK, you learn something new everyday.

Funny that you should substitute mockery and namecalling for reasoning. But if that's all you got that's all you got.



Starman: Sorry if my metaphoric, explanations offended you. I only brought up, the intensity, because I (believe) or assumed, that you were playing, pry a little more without answering questions. Knowing you know full well what I said in my previous post. :rolleyes:

Morganite agrees: Good vs. Evil is the Manichaean theory.

Thanks for the info. I guess it never hurts to know the proper terms.

Really so, tryin' to cloud the situation with 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000,s. :confused:


You misunderstand string theory. String theory is a model of fundamental physics whose building blocks are one-dimensional extended objects called strings, rather than the zero-dimensional point particles that form the basis for the Standard Model of particle physics. The phrase is often used as shorthand for Superstring theory, as well as related theories such as M-theory. String theorists are attempting to adjust the Standard Model by removing the assumption in quantum mechanics that particles are point-like. By removing this assumption and replacing the point-like particles with strings, a sensible quantum theory of gravity seems to naturally emerge. Moreover, string theory attempts to "unify" the known natural forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak nuclear and strong nuclear) by describing them with the same set of equations.

For a scientific theory to be valid it must be verified experimentally. Few avenues for such contact with experiment have been claimed. With the construction of the Large Hadron Collider in CERN some scientists hope to produce relevant data. It is generally expected though that any theory of quantum gravity would require much higher energies to probe.

Another potential problem is that it is not a theory that is tightly constrained. There are different versions of string theory, depending on factors such as whether supersymmetry is incorporated into the formulation. These versions are thought to be related to each other as different limits of one theory, coined M-theory. There is a huge number of possible solutions to string theory as it is currently understood. Thus it has been claimed by some scientists that string theory may not be falsifiable and may have no predictive power.

Studies of string theory have revealed that it predicts higher-dimensional objects called branes. String theory strongly suggests the existence of ten or eleven (in M-theory) spacetime dimensions, as opposed to the usual four (three spatial and one temporal) used in relativity theory; however the theory can describe universes with four effective (observable) spacetime dimensions by a variety of methods.

An important branch of the field is dealing with a conjectured duality between string theory as a theory of gravity and gauge theory. It is hoped that research in this direction will lead to new insights on quantum chromodynamics, the fundamental theory of strong nuclear force. This direction of research has better hopes to make contact with experiment, compared to string theory as a quantum theory of gravity, though currently the alternative, Lattice QCD, is doing a much better job and has already made contact with experiments at various fields with good results, though the computations are numerical rather than analytic.

M:)

You misunderstand string theory. String theory is a model of fundamental physics whose building blocks are one-dimensional extended objects called strings, rather than the zero-dimensional point particles that form the basis for the Standard Model of particle physics. The phrase is often used as shorthand for Superstring theory, as well as related theories such as M-theory. String theorists are attempting to adjust the Standard Model by removing the assumption in quantum mechanics that particles are point-like. By removing this assumption and replacing the point-like particles with strings, a sensible quantum theory of gravity seems to naturally emerge. Moreover, string theory attempts to "unify" the known natural forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak nuclear and strong nuclear) by describing them with the same set of equations.

For a scientific theory to be valid it must be verified experimentally. Few avenues for such contact with experiment have been claimed. With the construction of the Large Hadron Collider in CERN some scientists hope to produce relevant data. It is generally expected though that any theory of quantum gravity would require much higher energies to probe.

Another potential problem is that it is not a theory that is tightly constrained. There are different versions of string theory, depending on factors such as whether or not supersymmetry is incorporated into the formulation. These versions are thought to be related to each other as different limits of one theory, coined M-theory. There is a huge number of possible solutions to string theory as it is currently understood. Thus it has been claimed by some scientists that string theory may not be falsifiable and may have no predictive power.

Studies of string theory have revealed that it predicts higher-dimensional objects called branes. String theory strongly suggests the existence of ten or eleven (in M-theory) spacetime dimensions, as opposed to the usual four (three spatial and one temporal) used in relativity theory; however the theory can describe universes with four effective (observable) spacetime dimensions by a variety of methods.

An important branch of the field is dealing with a conjectured duality between string theory as a theory of gravity and gauge theory. It is hoped that research in this direction will lead to new insights on quantum chromodynamics, the fundamental theory of strong nuclear force. This direction of research has better hopes to make contact with experiment, compared to string theory as a quantum theory of gravity, though currently the alternative, Lattice QCD, is doing a much better job and has already made contact with experiments at various fields with good results, though the computations are numerical rather than analytic.

M:)

Morganite thanks for the motivational advice. :rolleyes:

Is50% good+50% evil=God? I ask this because every thing has an opposite answer this I am confused.


If you try to define God there is no way you can do this either in theory or in fact.
When you try to set boundaries around God and say that He is only this and only that you cannot do it.
Percentage is a human thing and God has infinite qualities and they cannot be termed as good or bad.
For those who do not believe in a God there is no need for a definition

And for those who do believe,God Almighty is
The Most Wise,Most Just, He is the sustainer, The Provider,He is self sufficient, He is the Knower of the unseen and the visible; He is the All-Merciful, the All-Compassionate, He is the King, the Guardian of Faith, the All-Preserver, the All-Mighty, the All-Compeller, the All-Sublime,He is Everlasting etc
And you cannot define such terms in Percentage.

If you try to define God there is no way you can do this either in theory or in fact.
When you try to set boundaries around God and say that He is only this and only that you cannot do it.
Percentage is a human thing and God has infinite qualities and they cannot be termed as good or bad.
For those who do not believe in a God there is no need for a definition

and for those who do believe,God Almighty is
the Most Wise,Most Just, He is the sustainer, The Provider,He is self sufficient, He is the Knower of the unseen and the visible; He is the All-Merciful, the All-Compassionate, He is the King, the Guardian of Faith, the All-Preserver, the All-Mighty, the All-Compeller, the All-Sublime,He is Everlasting etc
and you cannot define such terms in Percentage.


Firmbeliever: I agree, If you are meaning God starts from infinate (0) to infiniti, which encompess the full spectrum of infinty. I also would like to note that from infiniate Zero to exactly 49.999 it represents negative satan. From 50 to infiniti, represents positive God. However from 49.999 to 50, there is a bonding agent, that is unbreakable. For example there is no normal man, without infinate evil and infinate good combined... Please don't let us not talk about what is hoped for, as your acceptance of real truth. :confused:

Morganite, wouldn't it have been better for you to point him to String theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory), rather than copy pasting from there and making it look like the text is your own?

Every good scientist knows to source their publications.

Capuchin: are you talking about plagurism?

I'm familiar with Morganite, and I'm sure he didn't mean for it to look that way. I just wanted to point out that it wasn't his work, because he gave no indication that it wasn't.

If you try to define God there is no way you can do this either in theory or in fact.
When you try to set boundaries around God and say that He is only this and only that you cannot do it.
Percentage is a human thing and God has infinite qualities and they cannot be termed as good or bad.
For those who do not believe in a God there is no need for a definition

and for those who do believe,God Almighty is
the Most Wise,Most Just, He is the sustainer, The Provider,He is self sufficient, He is the Knower of the unseen and the visible; He is the All-Merciful, the All-Compassionate, He is the King, the Guardian of Faith, the All-Preserver, the All-Mighty, the All-Compeller, the All-Sublime,He is Everlasting etc
and you cannot define such terms in Percentage.


:rolleyes: Firmbeliever it is better to know God.


Firmbeliever: I agree, If you are meaning God starts from infinate (0) to infiniti, which encompess the full spectrum of infinty. I also would like to note that from infiniate Zero to exactly 49.999 it represents negative satan. From 50 to infiniti, represents positive God. However from 49.999 to 50, there is a bonding agent, that is unbreakable. For example there is no normal man, without infinate evil and infinate good combined... Please don't let us not talk about what is hoped for, as your acceptance of real truth. :confused:


Firmbeliever I am still waiting for your response on my 49.999 to 50 theory. Don't be, self righteous father like Chuck; who tried to blind side Freethinka, :confused: by calling my questions silly. I would dearly like for you to answer my questions, please.

I am sorry, this is all sillyness, you can not define God in mans ideas and terms, You are trying to make the all powerful, every lasting, almighty God be like and have the physcial qualities, He created man, gravity, fluids and is not bound by the rules and ideas of man.

The sooner you understand that God can not be, can not have and does not have even one million of one percent of evil or bad, the sooner you will be on a path to accepting God in reality and not playing or trying to make God in your image.

Starman: Sorry if my metaphoric, explanations offended you. I only brought up, the intensity, because I (believe) or assumed, that you were playing, pry a little more without answering questions. Knowing you know full well what I said in my previous post. :rolleyes:


Of course I know full well that you are purporting to ask questions when in all reality you wish to debate. Yes, you are 100% entitled to your inhale-exhale metaphorical description of God. However, it remains and forever will remain an opinion without scriptural support and there is where the crux of the matter is. Christians require scriptural biblical support for any concept or descriptions of God. Since scripture describes God completely different from you do, and we prefer to believe the Bible. Not that YOU have to believe it--simply that as Christians those are our beliefs and as the matter stands they simply don't harmonize with yours nor with anyone else's ideas which blatantly contradict the Bible's description of our God.

I am sorry, this is all sillyness, you can not define God in mans ideas and terms, You are trying to make the all powerfull, every lasting, almighty God be like and have the physcial qualities, He created man, gravity, fluids and is not bound by the rules and ideas of man.

The sooner you understand that God can not be, can not have and does not have even one million of one percent of evil or bad, the sooner you will be on a path to accepting God in reality and not playing or trying to make God in your image.

:o Still Fr Chuck, the silliness façade isn't working or you are simply too great and holy, to answer my questions? Please answer...


Of course I know full well that you are purporting to ask questions when in all reality you wish to debate. Yes, you are 100% entitled to your inhale-exhale metaphorical description of God. However, it remains and forever will remain an opinion without scriptural support and there is twhere the crux of the matter is. Christians require scriptural biblical support for any concept or descriptions of God. Since scripture describes God completely different than you do, and we prefer to believe the Bible. Not that YOU have to believe it--simply that as Christians those are our beliefs and as the matter stands they simply don't harmonize with yours nor with anyone else's ideas which blatantly contradict the Bible's description of our God.


That was arrogant! :o

:o Still Fr Chuck, the silliness facade isn't working or you are simply too great and holy, to answer my questions? Please answer...




That was arogant! :o


PLease accept my my apologies if I made that bad impression on you. My sole intention was to clarify the Christian position in order to make the Christian responses understandable to non-Christians who might be unfamiliar with the reasons Christians respond in the way they do to non-biblical ideas.

God is an ultimate positive force, satan is the ultimate negative force, like a battery, nothing works unless the two are working. somebody show me different

God is not a battery. Find a better example. For example, what is meant by 'satan is the ultimate negative force.'?

God doesn't need satan to work.
He's beyond all your little sciences and logics and physics. That's why he's god.
You cannot succeed in describing god, that's why science cannot comprehend him.
Hes everlasting, he's eternal, he's all knowing, he's all loving, he's the king of kings.

Would you say that science fails to describe God in the same way that science fails to describe this miniature pet elephant that I keep in my pocket that doesn't exist?

The elephant doesn't exist. God does.

How so? :)

This is fun by the way

There is no evidence to say that the miniature pet elephant is in your pocket, except your word, which contradicts itself.

I have a book that was written many years ago, which tells of the existence of the elephant. My beliefs of the elephant are based entirely off that.

That's very nice.
Was that book written over thousands of years by 40 different writers who didn't collaberate with each other, yet whose writings agreed perfectly and exactly?
Does that book tell of real, historacilly proven elephants?
Have they find fossilised elephant poo and the ruins of elephant farms in the places described by your book?
Do millions of people believe in your book?

You have fossilised Jesus poo?? Wow.

Lol. no.
I was trying to put it in your "elephant" terms

The little elephant does not poo, how dare you speak such heresy.

Anyway, the point is that science cannot describe God or the little elephant because neither are physical. Not because he is eternal or all-knowing. In fact energy is eternal, and science describes that just fine.

:rolleyes: Firmbeliever it is better to know God.

Firmbeliever I am still waiting for your response on my 49.999 to 50 theory. Don't be, self righteous father like Chuck; who tried to blind side Freethinka, :confused: by calling my questions silly. I would dearly like for you to answer my questions, please.


As I keep saying, I am not here to argue with anyone (especially when it is to argue just for arguments sake) and I am not here to prove my faith to you or to make you believe in my faith.
I know I am not perfect but I know/believe God Almighty is perfect and that is enough for me to have faith in Him.

:) :) :)

To me, god is the one thing that's going right in my life!
In a life of depression, meaninglessness, no real future to look forward to, and a lot of hurt being carried around in my heart, god came into my life, and for the first time, there was something really worth struggling for! I went through crisis's of faith, pain, disapointement, but I still kept trying! Because I had realised that GOD IS WORTH IT ALL, worth all the pain, worth every struggle, worth every hurt, worth dying for!
So I kept trying. I sunk deeper into depression, and god lifted me out of it, suddenly, while I was worshipping, I began to smile. I started laughing, just out of nowhere, for no reason other than joy in god. I KNOW NOW THAT I HAVE PURPOSE AND MEANING AND A BRIGHT FUTURE.
And god is guiding me towards that future.
I was the kid who didn't really talk so good, but now, gods gifted me with a love of writing stuff, and hey someone from this site added me on msn to ask me "are you really 15? i dont believe it! you sorta inspired me!"
I went from wanting to kill myself, to telling others passionatly that their future is bright and that they can do anything.
And I'm still growing in god. I'm still learning. And I am going to do so much better with my life!

Cal, I have to say that your avatar reminds me of noodly appendages :).

You and I are similar. We have had a similar path in our early life. But I never found God, I found my own way out of the dire state that I was in, with the help of friends and family.

Did someone say noodly appendages? I should be offended, but instead, I will link something with "noodly appendages"

Flying Spaghetti Monster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster)
Yes that's right, THAT! Is in wikipedia.

Yes, that's what I was referring to. ;).

Of course it's in wikipedia, it's notable.

Lol, does cals hair really look like noodles? Really?
If so, I need to give him a new do

Well, blue noodles.

Aaaww dam... cal is crushed!
Next artwork I do, he's going to be crying!

There's nothing wrong with wishing to become one with the noodle...

Cal does not wish to become one with the noodle.
Anyway, I'm the artist, and I am in charge of cal. and I forbid him to become one with the noodle :P

NeedKarma likes the current Cal avatar. Pay no attention to the monkey on a recruiting mission. :)

I am not a follower of the noodle. In fact I cringe when he comes up in posts on this board. I was just pointing out what your avater reminded me of :)

Of course you cringe, because you know the back story as to why that deity was "discovered". :D

I'm much more fond of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (Blessed be her Holy Hooves). She's much less ridiculous, more noble, and fits the same purpose.

Lol, now needkarma thinks that I am talking about myself in third person
Thanks anyway karma :)

I still love you cal!

:) I love you all, hugs all around!
Lol

It's a yin yang deal. You can't have good without evil, how would you benchmark what is good if you had nothing evil to compare it to? Same works vice versa.

Think of god as the ultimate embodiment of good, and the devil as evil incarnate.

Would that mean that the godless are totally lacking in goodness? Or do we need to redefine what God is to make him less of a mathematical or semantic issue?


M:)

Morganite, you may be on the something: if one is an atheist then they do not have to worry about evil or satan - it becomes a non-issue!

As I said previously, god is beyong mathematics. You cannot explain him with 1s and 0s and tangenty cosiney things.

Just like you can't describe love with mathematics?

Exactly!
Mathmatics just makes the world smaller anyway.

So God is an emotion?

No. God isn't an emotion.
Though I guess he is the ultimate embodiment of love though, that's an emotion.
He a perfect being. Is that so hard to believe?

he a perfect being. is that so hard to believe?The answer is 'yes' by many people since it's pure faith in something unseen and unprovable.

its not unseen completely though.
My mum chucked up hysterics about how I'm going to die from diet coke because she heard a chick on the news say these words
"Studies have shown that diet coke can increase the risk of developing diabeties"
she believed that because some random chick said some stuff.

Cal,
I have no idea what idea you were trying to convey there. Sorry.

I'm saying
"we believe what the media says, why can't we believe a book?"

Not a good analogy. No one believes everything the media says and if they are then they are a fool. But that is exactly what christianity wants us to believe - that the book is absolutely true and unerring.

By the way the study may have said that those who drink a lot of diet soda/pop may have an increased the risk of developing diabeties, but the message your mom told you was "you are going to die from diet coke" - see the problem there?

Well, my mum is quite a fool
But that's beside the point.
Whether you like it or want to believe it or not, society and the media is swaying opinions, moulding people.
Take music for example.
They can play songs on the radio, such as "Anarchist in the U.K" which sings about the antichrist.
But any song praising a loving god is never played on the radio?
Also, young girls are believing the medias and the societies expectations, and as a result suffer from anorexia.
And etc etc

Just for your information, your mum might be wrong about diabetes, but diet coke has been linked to other conditions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy). And you're in the most vulnerable age group. So she had a point, even if it was literally wrong.

So you're saying that the only reason that Christianity is not universally accepted is because of the media? You don't think there's something slightly wrong with that statement?

There clearly is something wrong with that statement. Many Christians follow the news and the media, but also follow God. I think that the reason Christianity is not universally accepted is because you msut rely on faith, not proof... and because we were raised to believe that proof is what is needed for truth, it's just something in our minds. Of course, there are some people who learn to have faith with time, but it has nothing to do with the media really.

Only fools believe!!! All I am asking for, is to see proof. Is an insult proof Mariy?
Or an insult mean; you have no proof? If so give me reason...



I understand you said it in anger and frustration, but if you truly believe what you say about only fools believing, does that mean you are married to a fool, and does he/she know what you think of her/him?

Are you saying that only atheists are wise? If so how do you figure that one out? What is your scientific data for such a sweeping statement? Dearly to know that I would very much like.




M:)

Freethinka, Morganite here is proof against your rule. He is a very wise believer.

well, my mum is quite a fool
but thats beside the point.
whether you like it or want to believe it or not, society and the media is swaying opinions, moulding people.
take music for example.
they can play songs on the radio, such as "Anarchist in the U.K" which sings about the antichrist.
but any song praising a loving god is never played on the radio?
also, young girls are believing the medias and the societies expectations, and as a result suffer from anorexia.
and etc etc

Anorexia is almost always a response to personal situations. I have not come across any studies finding media styles at fault. It is much more profound in its etiologies.


M:)

im saying
"we believe what the media says, why can't we believe a book?"

Books are media. Books are written to persuade, and that includes all holy books.


M:)

True.. in a way......

I didn't say it is not accepted due to media.
I said that media tends to encourage atheism.
Too me, evolutionism is just another religion. So, why does are kids taught this belief in science class? Isn't the school system and the media meant to support personal choice in belief?
Kids are gullible, evolution in my opinion should be withheld, just like religions, until a person is old enough to make their owns choices in what they believe.

And gravity too? Newtonian mechanics should be withheld? How about the gas laws? Phase transitions should be withheld too? Oh and let's not teach them about the physics of color either. Anythign about enzymes? Selective breeding?

Lol. Once again. You have extrapolated from my words.
I said evolutionism, not science.
I reckon that once a person is in senior school, they can choose to either study evolution, one of the religions, a philophosy class, etc
Let them make their own choose of what to believe, instead of teaching them what to believe.

Evolution has as much evidence and acceptance in science as all of the topics that I mentioned. If you deem evolution to be a religion, then so must you deem all the rest of scientific understanding a religion.

Ahuh.
Find me at least a small amount of the required "missing links" and I will believe that fish became dinosaurs and that mice became apes which became men.
There's almost as much evidence against evolution as there is for it.
I can prove gravity, I just have to drop something, and this sort of thing can be applied to most of science.
I can't prove evolution, I can't sit there and watch things evolve.

i can't prove evolution, i can't sit there and watch things evolve.If you had children as I do you would see it in progress. :)

There's 2 kinds of evolution
Minor evolution, which is like your kid having different hair colour or being a little smarter

Major evolution
Which is fish to dinosaurs sort of thing.

Can you watch major evolution?

can you watch major evolution?I don't know, can you stay alive for 5,000 years to watch it? Yet you believe a 2,000 year old book.

I believe it out of faith
I just don't think there should be an arbitrary taught faith like evolution taught in class as if it is scientific fact

We're going 'round in circles. Me or Capuchin telling you there is overwhelming evidence (hence the 'science' part) will not change your views.

Have a great day!

:)

True, I was thinking it was about time for us to stop arguing about this anyway, I have my faith(christianity) and you have your faith (darwinism)
Have a great week! I respect your beliefs.

Cal you were great !

Lol! Thanks

Macroevolution is just lots of microevolutions. Why is that hard to accept if you accept that microevolution happens?

There is very little evidence against evolution. I don't doubt that you've been told that there is though. Please feel free to provide said evidence.

Even without the fossil record, there's still a huge amount of evidence for evolution. Paleontology is a very small part of the set of evidence we have.

Please don't tell me I believe in Darwinism. Nobody in the scientific community believes in Darwinism. Darwin's theory of evolution has been altered many many times. This is what science is all about, modifying theories to fit new evidence. It is not static like your book.

Like I said, calling evolution faith is like calling the whole of science faith. I'm sure there are scientific things that you believe that you cannot prove.

true, i was thinking it was about time for us to stop arguing about this anyway, i have my faith(christianity) and you have your faith (darwinism)
have a great week! i respect your beliefs.
From Wiki: "Creationists use the term Darwinism, often pejoratively, to imply that the theory has been held as true only by Darwin and a core group of his followers, which they cast as dogmatic and inflexible in their belief. Casting evolution as a doctrine or belief bolsters religiously motivated political arguments to mandate equal time for the teaching of creationism in public schools."

Darwinists use the term "Creationism" ;)

You mean evolutionists. It's fine to call us that. But we don't believe in Darwinistic evolution.

Okay, evolutionists.
Can you please explain to me the diff between darwinistic evolution and evolution?
Is it just because of his racist and sexist views, or is it more?

No, darwinism is the theory that he put forward 150 years ago. Since then, more evidence of how life evolved has come to light. In order to make the theory more accurate, little corrections are made so that it explains this evidence also. This is what happens with all scientific theories. The theory of evolution we follow now is correctly termed Neo-Darwinism or Evolutionary Synthesis. It's Darwinism with numerous tweaks to fit all the evidence that we see. It is not static like creationism, because we know that we have not seen all that there is to see.

As far as I'm aware, Darwin had no strong sexist or racist views. Again, I'm sure that this is anti-evolutionist propaganda that has been invented in order to discredit evolution. Of course they do not seem to realise that even if he was racist or sexist (and I don't believe that there is evidence that he was), then it would not say anythign about the validity of his theory.

Ummmmm I've seen extracts from his work quoted that say racist/sexist things
Probably fits with the times it was written though

It's a yin yang deal. You can't have good without evil, how would you benchmark what is good if you had nothing evil to compare it to? Same works vice versa.

Think of god as the ultimate embodiment of good, and the devil as evil incarnate.

Incarnate means that the devil is embodied just like a human being. Is that what you meant to say?


M:)

Its interesting actually, there is some symmetry between god and the devil
God/devil
And the physical incarnations of jesus/antichrist
But it makes you think... what about the holy spirit? Is there a satannic counterpart? Or maybe the devil just doesn't understand the concept of the holy spirit and so didn't mimic it... I don't know...
Maybe the devils just a dumb evil copycat who wants to mock god by making evil versions of his work

Not a good analogy. No one believes everything the media says and if they are then they are a fool. But that is exactly what christianity wants us to believe - that the book is absolutely true and unerring.

By the way the study may have said that those who drink a lot of diet soda/pop may have an increased the risk of developing diabeties, but the message your mom told you was "you are going to die from diet coke" - see the problem there?

The 'inerrancy of scripture', meaning the Bible, is a fairly recent phenomenon. The Bible makes no claims to inerrancy, and many of its mistakes are still evident. If the Bible were perfect then it would be God and the worship of it would be Bibliolatry. But the Bible does not advocate, condone, support, nor approve of an inerrant text. This is obvious from the text itself.


M:)RGANITE

its interesting actually, there is some symetry between god and the devil
god/devil
and the physical incarnations of jesus/antichrist
but it makes you think.....what about the holy spirit? is there a satannic counterpart? or maybe the devil just doesnt understand the concept of the holy spirit and so didnt mimic it....i dunno....
maybe the devils just a dumb evil copycat who wants to mock god by making evil versions of his work
There is very little symmetry between God and Satan whichever way you look at it, unless one remains at a superficial level. Satan opposes God, but he is not as wise as God or else he would realise that he is on a hiding to nothing and cannot, ultimately, win his battle against God and goodness.

Satan has nothing to offer humanity except eternal misery and permanent failure. Satan was once an angel of light so it is not unthinkable that he understands the Holy Spirit extremely well and does his best to counter its good and positive influences. Yet there is no equity in the 'power' that Satan when considered in inverse proportion to God's power.

The 'power' of Satan is limited to influencing the choices people make, but God's power includes the control of nature, creation, eternal salvation, the provision of a savior to remove the evil effects on the human soul that is the lot of those who are turned aside from God's way by the gaudy entreaties of Lucifer, whose sole aim is to make everyone as miserable as he is, and to attempt to thwart God's purposes of saving humanity from the effects of sin and disobedience.

Although we should not minimize Satan's influence by too great a degree, neither should we inflate his reputation and capabilities, because he is limited in hios sphere of activities by what God will permit. For example:

1 Corinthians 10:13: There has no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is trustworthy and he will not permit you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to patiently endure it without being influenced by it.

Thus, although Satan himself is the counterpart as far as the mission and purpose of the Holy Spirit is concerned, Satan cannot be thought of as the mirror image of God, because he is so far removed from God and God's characteristics and attributes that Satan shows up very poorly by any kind of comparison.

There will be no 'incarnation' of an antichrist. An antichrist is any person or institution that opposes God and Christ, not a specific and special individual who will be born into the world to bring about an andgame of Manichean proportions when the forces of God and the forces of satan duke it out to decide who wins the sols of mankind. That outcome has already been decided, and although I don't want to spil the Book for those who have not finished reading it, God and Goodness wins, and Satan and evil are defeated, roundly and permanently. This is better than Harry Potter! :)


M:)RGANITE

Please feel free to quote his work here :)

Lol
Who dies in harry potter anyway? No one will tell me lol

Snape kills Dumbledore.

I meant the newest book lol

;D. I would discourage anyone from spoiling a recently released book on a public forum like this. Many people who have not had time to read the book would not want to have it spoiled.

Dammit... meh, it's a crap book anyway, I always thought harry potter was too silly a book

My friend called me just to complain about how much he hated it:p

Your proof you will find in my book LULU STOREFRONT STEPHEN A JEFFREY.
Or available from Amazon under the title MY SCIENCE THESIS- by Stephen A Jeffrey.
The maths of the big bang is wrong it violates the law of non contradiction that is why I wrote this mathematical parody of the big bang theory of everything.
Steve

Do you have aposition on the onion theory?


M:)

Cal, you are right, I've found some views in his work that were racist. However there were very few people 150 years ago who weren't racist, our society has come a long way since then.

Exactly, literay texts of that time, as well as scientific texts would reflect the racist and sexist attitudes of said times society.

Freethinka is asking questions about, the said being, that you quote. I do not believe in, I actually do not, because around me in my country where I live, it is sickening how individuals live, rant and rave 365 days a year, about this belief. These characters are wicked, corrupt, to say the best, devils that use that belief. to literally destroy a beautiful paridise . They (believers) are everywhere, like a bad infection spreading what isn't proven..., I can now apply your last remark about a flat earth, in its proper context: The earth is flat when it is dominated by something unseen and hoped for and need prayers and faith for it to operate. I see where we get our stress from, like Freethinka said, when you believe, it is exactly the same, as hanging on by a thread in the abyss.

Sorry to seem like I am not satisfied with answers, it is just that, as long as there is belief, it is all the reason to keep asking questions, Once you know there is no need to ask any questions.


What other things that you do not believe do you make such a big fuss about?


M:)

To deny the law of non contradiction formulated by Aristotle is believed to be throwing truth out the window by Francis Shaeffer.
I would read what he has to say about the law of non contradtion.
The big bang requires that something come from nothing without a God for existing matter and energy to do this requires my contradictory creation equation.
I told a tiny lie about bineg a really experienced skier but really how hard can it be?
bridget Jones diary.
Creation exnihilo is not a contradiction because the existence of God makes the impossible something from nothing possible.
Your proof can be found by studying the law of non contradiction.
I also recommend creation science.
What qualifications does Aristotle have to prove the big bang wrong.
And what qualifications do you need other than common sense.
Steve

Erm, Hi Steve, could you word your post a little better, I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying.

1/3 APPLE+ 1/3 ORANGE+ 1/3 ORANGE= 1 APPLE/ORANGE.
This violates the law of non contradiction which states that two particles X and Y cannot be the same state at the same time.
Like it cannot be rainy or sunny at the same time or light and dark.
Steve:)
This dialogue is a great example of the necessity of using logic and what happens when the laws of logic are undermined. This atheist is bright and knows that if he concedes the laws of logic are absolute, he would be on the defensive. It is my opinion that he purposely trying to undermine the validity of logic in order to retain his position. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that is my opinion. Judge for yourself as we jump in.




Matt Slick: Evidence for what? God's existence?
Rashbam: I don't agree that there was any begging the question.
Matt Slick: I can offer you an argument for God's existence, if you're interested. It is a bit involved, but worth a look.
Rashbam: I do hope it won't be one of the old hackneyed ones (cosmological, transcendental, etc.) Since they have been pretty much thrashed.
Matt Slick: I didn't think the transcendental argument was hackneyed. I prefer to use the transcendental argument.
Rashbam: Ah, a "transcendentalist." How quaint.
Matt Slick: Would you like to try and thrash the transcendental argument?
Rashbam: I don't even find it to be a coherent argument.
Matt Slick: Would you agree with me that if there are only two options to explain something, and one of them is proven false, that logically speaking, the other position is validated?
Rashbam: Well, let's see about that, Matt. Do you know anything about quantum mechanics, for example? About the fact that there can be linear superpositions of physical states?
Matt Slick: Are you an expert on quantum mechanics?
Rashbam: Yes, in fact I am an expert. Ph.d. in physics, professor of physics.
Matt Slick: Well, then, good. This should be interesting. I suppose that what you're going to try and do is bury me with esoteric terminology and concepts that you know I don't know about. I further suppose that you would try to do this in order to try and win an argument. Though it is not winning an argument.
Rashbam: No, but it will be difficult if you don't know about some basics.
Matt Slick: Since we both agree that logic is something we should use, let's discuss logic. Do you agree that logic exists?
Rashbam: I'm not sure what you mean by that statement.
Matt Slick: Logic is something we use in our dialogues, "if then" propositions, etc.
Rashbam: I think logic is a mode of thought.
Matt Slick: Okay. Logic Is a mode of thought. I would agree.
Rashbam: What you find logical may not be logical to me. I would then have to try to convince you that you have made an error, consistent with your own views of the rules of logic
Matt Slick: Would you agree with me that, for example, the law of non-contradiction is true? That something cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense?
Rashbam: Well, Matt, here's where I need to ask about quantum mechanics.
Matt Slick: Don't ask me about quantum mechanics. I'm not the expert.
Rashbam: Because we can have a state of physical reality where an electron has spin "up" and spin "down" simultaneously.
Matt Slick: However, I do know about logic and I am asking you a question. Would you agree with me that, for example, the law of non-contradiction is true? That something cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense?
Rashbam: It is equivalent to having a person being alive and dead, simultaneously. Presumably you would claim that a person cannot be both alive and dead simultaneously. But quantum mechanics proves otherwise *with the following caveat*...
Matt Slick: Excuse me, but I'm not here to discuss quantum mechanics.
Rashbam: That caveat is: Macroscopic states, due to something called "decoherence," generally assume classical behaviors.
Matt Slick: Excuse me, can we stick to the topic? Can you please stop trying to bury me in esoteric terminology?
Rashbam: Well then I'm sorry but I cannot accept the "law of noncontradiction" because I know of instances where it does not apply.
Matt Slick: So then the law of non-contradiction is not true, correct?
Rashbam: As applied to quantum systems, it is problematic. A more nuanced form would be required.
Matt Slick: If the law of non-contradiction is not true, then I immediately claim victory over you in all of our arguments because I have already won everything logically because I said so yesterday and today.
Rashbam: Can you make progress in your argument without invoking the law of non-conradiction?
Matt Slick: I never mentioned a law of non-contradiction.
Rashbam: You did about 2 minutes ago.
Matt Slick: No, I did not. You are obviously in error. Since the law of non-contradiction cannot be assumed to always be true, then I have not contradicted myself when
I tell you I never mentioned the law of non-contradiction, even in this statement.
Rashbam: I didn't say you contradicted yourself. By the way, I claim victory too!
Matt Slick: Therefore, I win again because the law of non-contradiction is not absolute. Therefore, I cannot be proven to have contradicted myself.
Rashbam: And I thank you for graciously conceding the argument to me!
Matt Slick: Ah, then according to your system of thought, we all win. Yeah! I like what you have done. You've invalidated rational discussion. Well done.
Rashbam: No, only I have won. You conceded -- remember?
Matt Slick: Is this what your atheism leads to, irrationality?
Rashbam: No, Matt -- you're the one who started playing games here.
Matt Slick: No, since I claimed it first, I win first. No matter what you say, I double that. Therefore, I win. Nya nya nya.
Rashbam: I simply pointed out that there is a problem with classical notions of contradiction when one goes to the quantum level -- the way the universe works.
Matt Slick: Now, if by chance you are willing to have a rational discussion with me, then we could continue. But if you want to assert that the law of non-contradiction is not rationally true in all places, and then there is no basis for rational discussion.
Rashbam: You dismissed that as "jargon" and started ranting.
Matt Slick: I never dismissed any jargon and I was not ranting ever. Not at all.
Rashbam: This is why we need to talk about quantum mechanics, Matt.
Matt Slick: Or... are you going to cite the law of non-contradiction as being true in which to prove me incorrect?
Rashbam: Because you insist that the "law of non-contradiction" is essential.
Matt Slick: Which is it going to be? Are you going to validate the rule or invalidate the rule?
Rashbam: It depends on how you try to apply it. Of course.
Matt Slick: I'm just trying to establish a rational dialogue. It is you who is trying to undermine it. When I assume you're a presupposition regarding the law of non-contradiction, the previous several minutes is the result.
Rashbam: This isn't going the way you thought, huh?
Matt Slick: Actually, I thought you'd be logical. I didn't think you would use illogic to try and win an argument.
Rashbam: No, I have simply pointed out that your assumptions might be problematic in certain cases.
Matt Slick: "might be"? That's it? "might be" is what you're offering? So you have a possibility, a "might be" for your position? Is that rational?
Rashbam: Well as I don't know how you are going to invoke this "law" that is the best I can do. Why don't you proceed and I'll tell you when you've made an error.
Matt Slick: The law of non-contradiction is something you cited earlier. I purposely was illogical, violating the law of non-contradiction. You cited my error, thereby presupposing the validity of the law of non-contradiction.
Rashbam: Ah, so you admit you were intentionally being illogical.
Matt Slick: So you either must tell me that it is true or it is not true. The law of excluded middle tells us that the statement is either true or false.
Rashbam: So you were the one who started to derail the conversation.
Matt Slick: Now, is it true or false that the law of non-contradiction is always true? I was not derailing the conversation. I was precisely on topic.
Rashbam: Again, I need to ask you about quantum mechanics.
Matt Slick: I see, so you can stick to the issue at hand?
Rashbam: Because the physical world behaves differently than you think.
Matt Slick: On what basis do you make that statement?
Rashbam: Can't you just get on with your argument?
Matt Slick: On what basis do you make the statement that the physical world behaves differently than I think?
Rashbam: Well you yourself profess ignorance of Qm. So obviously you are not thinking about it.
Matt Slick: You don't know what I know or don't know about quantum physics.
Rashbam: And since Qm has been verified in experiments to excruciating detail, it is a very good model for physical reality.
Matt Slick: Don't ask me about quantum mechanics. I'm not the expert.
Rashbam: Matt, just get on with your argument, please.
Matt Slick: Rash, can you think logically? Saying I'm not an expert doesn't mean I know nothing about it. Therefore, you don't know what I do know or don't know about it. You are not being logical. On what basis do you make your arguments? You are assuming the validity of the laws of logic in our discussion here






The conversation died off at this point and digressed into basic name calling and his attacks on the Bible. When someone undermines logic, he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Rashbam makes many valid points. Matt Slick seems to be ignoring real world results, in fact he refuses to let Rashbam explain QM to him.

Erm, Hi Steve, could you word your post a little better, I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying.The big bang theory of everything is rpoved wrong by the law of non contradiction.
1/3 APPLE+ 1/3 ORANGE+ 1/3 ORANGE= 1 APPLE/ORANGE is an equation for making equations one with everything.
But it is false because Two opposite particles X and Y YING AND YANG cannot be in the same state at the same time.
Here are ten laws of non contradiction.
1/ Contradictions entail everything.
2/Contradictions can't be true.
3/ Contradictions can't be believed rationality.
4/If contradictions were acceptable people could never be rationally criticized.
5/If contradictions were acceptable no one could deny anything.Like Peter denied.
6/ All units have to have an equal value for a theory of everything equation and a 1-1 correspondance.
Or an agreed value between pesos and dollars.
7/ Two opposite particles X and Y cannot be in the same state at the same time.
8/You can add apples to apples and oranges to oranges And that is not contradiction.But you can't add apples to oranges.
9/What are apples what are not contradictory equations.
10.You can't add 2+2=4.And of course you can add 2+2=4 and that is not a contradiction.

THE TRUTH ABOVE CAM.
THE TRUTH ABOUT HAMLET WITHOUT THE PRINCE THE BIG BANG WITHOUT JESUS.
TEN LAWS OF NON CONTRADICTION.
THEY WERE MEANT TO BE CAM PRINT THEM AS A TRACT...
Francis Shaffer said the law of non contradiction is the basis for all truth and all rationality.
Steve.

My creativity equation must not contradict the Laws of non contradiction can you use your supercomputer to test why it does obey the laws of on contradiction.Clue there are no large or small units in infinity.
And a horse by any other unit is still a horse.

What on earth are "opposite particles"?

Does he mean negative and positivly charged particles?
I'm not much of a science person, human biology I can understand, but physics isn't really my area
Or does he mean matter and anti-matter?
Or something else?

Cal, can you understand the point he's trying to make at all?

Can you put his point in more simple language for those of us who do not have a science degree?

You're assuming that his point is in scientific language. It is not. I cannot understand it either.

It doesn't make sense because it doesn't make sense. You have confirmed that to me.

Thank you

Is50% good+50% evil=God? I ask this because every thing has an opposite answer this I am confused.
God does not have any opposite. Satan is the opposite of Michael not God.

Why is Satan the opposite of someone? I don't get it.

Is he referring to Michael the Angel or Michael as a person?