[Capuchin]

Morganite, wouldn't it have been better for you to point him to String theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, rather than copy pasting from there and making it look like the text is your own?

Every good scientist knows to source their publications.

[Freethinka]

Capuchin: are you talking about plagurism?

[Capuchin]

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.

[Freethinka]

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.

[Fr_Chuck]

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]

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.

[Freethinka]

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

[Starman]

: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.

[Morganite]

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.'?

[cal823]

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.

[Capuchin]

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?

[cal823]

The elephant doesn't exist. God does.

[Capuchin]

How so? :)

[cal823]

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.

[Capuchin]

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.

[cal823]

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?

[Capuchin]

You have fossilised Jesus poo?? Wow.

[cal823]

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

[Capuchin]

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

[Capuchin]

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.