God.

[Labno]

Actually if we wanted to get technical it is not a word, but a name.

No, its a word. The name of the christian god is not "God".

THANK YOU!

[Dyakovo]

No, its a word. The name of the christian god is not "God".

THANK YOU!

YOU'RE WELCOME!
Why are we shouting?

[Unhealthy2]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,904786,00.html
http://www.nonduality.com/gene15.htm
https://depts.washington.edu/egonline/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/04.KLiu_.pdf

These are relevant to an ideal Tractatus language how, exactly?

[Tavalu]

Actually if we wanted to get technical it is not a word, but a name.

No, its a word. The name of the christian god is not "God".

hmm, according to dictionary.com, God can be in both lowercase and uppercase, uppercase refers to the supreme being, while others which it says (often lowercase) means an idol.

In the Oxford Dictionary it is uppercase when referring to the supreme being (by definition) but lowercase when informally talking about the gods, or idol.

[Farnhamia]

Sorry got to go guys I do not have time for this. All I can is that whatever you believe that is fine with me not so good for you. But heyyyyy at least you know you will have your friends on NSG with you in hell.

Well, as Mark Twain said, you go to Heaven for the weather and to Hell for the company. I'll take the latter.

[Farnhamia]

You can't use science to create things. Science just exists. The whole point of science is that it just happens. Nothing to guide it. It guides itself. That's the whole point.

But science was the one that proved notihng happens for a reason

No, that's Belgium. Nothing happens there. Except every now and then a large German social club rents out the whole place for a few years.

[Keronians]

Prove it.
Do particles attract each other for a reason?* Do moons orbit planets for a reason?** Does matter change forms in different conditions for a reason?*** No. It just does.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_bonding
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
*** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_matter

Nice try, but they all happen for a reason. You should have learned that in Physics.

No, no.

She thought that we meant ultimate, when we actually meant proximate.

[Farnhamia]

The problem with that view, then, is that there are quantifiable and scientifically explainable causes of phenomena such as gravity and chemical bonding. It would be illogical to throw those out the window and say that God does everything. In fact, why would He even *want* to do everything and micromanage His universe? It would be significantly easier for Him to merely influence the probability of random events than try to create something. If He wants humans, he'd affect the probability of evolution creating them. If He wants a moon made of cheese, he would influence the probability of atoms combining into molecules combining into a giant sphere of cheddar.

God can coincide with all scientific explanations just fine; they are not at odds with each other. Scientific explanations are basically descriptions of God's actions. No god of the gaps here. God's mere existence makes all things happen, so it's not like He has to actively "do" anything (a little iffy if that's even possible to do in an eternal state)

Doesn't this contradict what you said here? In that post, God is moving the planets, directly causing everything to happen. No all he has to do is "exist." And "directly" is your word.

[Hiroshino]

http://godandscience.org/apologetics/ev ... ering.html

[Farnhamia]

http://godandscience.org/apologetics/evilandsuffering.html

Gosh, thanks. Of course, arguing for the existence of Yahweh using the Bible is like arguing that Sherlock Holmes exists because you have his adventures in print.

[Bakakishtan]

I'm skeptical of everything.

[Caecili]

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_bonding
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
*** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_matter

Nice try, but they all happen for a reason. You should have learned that in Physics.

No, no.

She thought that we meant ultimate, when we actually meant proximate.

Yes. Do read my newer posts before you respond to my old ones.

[YellowApple]

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_bonding
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
*** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_matter

Nice try, but they all happen for a reason. You should have learned that in Physics.

No, no.

She thought that we meant ultimate, when we actually meant proximate.

Ah, okay then. My apologies. In that case, yes, they do just occur for the sake of occurring.

[Keronians]

http://godandscience.org/apologetics/evilandsuffering.html

That is not a valid argument. You are using the Bible, a biased source, as the basis of your evidence. As such, you fail.

[Keronians]

I'm skeptical of everything.

This is going to an interesting threadjack.

Do you exist?

[Norstal]

http://godandscience.org/apologetics/evilandsuffering.html

There is no god. My source? This New American Bible with never-before seen verses, just uncovered recently.

"Okay shut up guys, they might take this shit seriously.¹ So, from everyone here in Judea, there is no god. We discovered this long time ago.²" - Norstal 2:2.

[Farnhamia]

http://godandscience.org/apologetics/evilandsuffering.html

There is no god. My source? This New American Bible with never-before seen verses, just uncovered recently.

"Okay shut up guys, they might take this shit seriously.¹ So, from everyone here in Judea, there is no god. We discovered this long time ago.²" - Norstal 2:2.

wetfurz.

[Jasonovia]

God can coincide with all scientific explanations just fine; they are not at odds with each other. Scientific explanations are basically descriptions of God's actions. No god of the gaps here. God's mere existence makes all things happen, so it's not like He has to actively "do" anything (a little iffy if that's even possible to do in an eternal state)

Doesn't this contradict what you said here? In that post, God is moving the planets, directly causing everything to happen. No all he has to do is "exist." And "directly" is your word.

God is directly responsible for everything that happens. He does so by existing. What's the contradiction in that?

[Norstal]

There is no god. My source? This New American Bible with never-before seen verses, just uncovered recently.

"Okay shut up guys, they might take this shit seriously.¹ So, from everyone here in Judea, there is no god. We discovered this long time ago.²" - Norstal 2:2.

wetfurz.

So Adam an Eve did sumfin dat ull lurn abowt wen yur oldr. Latr, Eve had a kitteh naymd Cain. She sed, "OMG Ceiling Cat givez me a boi!!!!".

[Caecili]

Doesn't this contradict what you said here? In that post, God is moving the planets, directly causing everything to happen. No all he has to do is "exist." And "directly" is your word.

God is directly responsible for everything that happens. He does so by existing. What's the contradiction in that?

How is anything directly responsible for something just by existing? I don't understand your logic.

[Farnhamia]

Doesn't this contradict what you said here? In that post, God is moving the planets, directly causing everything to happen. No all he has to do is "exist." And "directly" is your word.

God is directly responsible for everything that happens. He does so by existing. What's the contradiction in that?

There isn't any now that you've papered over the cracks. It's the lazy person's way out, you know. "O hai, God makes everything happen but you can't tell because he does it in a way you can't detect."

Yeah.

Right.

You know, I just happen to have the deed to a very nice bridge in New York City, late 19th century, in excellent shape, very low asking price. Are you interested?

[Keronians]

wetfurz.

So Adam an Eve did sumfin dat ull lurn abowt wen yur oldr. Latr, Eve had a kitteh naymd Cain. She sed, "OMG Ceiling Cat givez me a boi!!!!".

That's funny.

But I also hate it when people mock over 2000 years of philosophy just like that.

[Caecili]

No, no.

She thought that we meant ultimate, when we actually meant proximate.

Ah, okay then. My apologies. In that case, yes, they do just occur for the sake of occurring.

Thank you, but I'm still sore that you assumed that I was so painfully stupid.

[Norstal]

That's funny.

But I also hate it when people mock over 2000 years of philosophy just like that.

Not really mocking. They're just more direct in translating everything. Which iz gewd.

[Keronians]

God is directly responsible for everything that happens. He does so by existing. What's the contradiction in that?

How is anything directly responsible for something just by existing? I don't understand your logic.

I believe that he thinks that God is the laws of physics.

However, sir, you must then explain this to me: did God not create the Universe?

If he did, then how can he be the laws of physics, which were created with the Universe?