The Black Vault

humphreys wrote:

orangetom1999 wrote:

Sorry, but you can't just "forget who created the Creator and on and on beyond infinity" as it's absolutely key to the discussion.

Huh????? Wow!!! Public Education???

Thanks,
Orangetom

Huh????? Wow!!! No Education???

Thanks,
Humphreys

greeney2 wrote:Its not loaded at all, it poses the question how can anything not have some kind of beginning? If you can not define how our universe came to be, or began, or evolved, the concept of God creating the Universe is no less harder to believe.

I just got done explaining in my prior post to this how it's easier to believe the universe wasn't created by a "God":

"God" would be infinitely more complex than the universe. How can you think the universe, which is far less complex than "God", need to be created, while something infinitely more complex doesn't need to be created?

In other words, it's far more likely that the universe would come into existence on its own than it is for a "God" to come into existence on its own.

at1with0 wrote:

frrostedman wrote:

at1with0 wrote:, like the number of people who died in the Holocaust.
I can prove that there is no largest number, for example.

You can't demonstrate it, but it's a truth that we both accept. Especially since numbers are things only in that they are concepts for the sake of unit measure.

Here's the demonstration:
Every number has a greater successor.

Prove it. I don't believe you.

The point is, what you have is a theorem. It can't be proven concretely. Neither can a perfect circle. Theorems are fine, I get it, but they can't be proven -- so there is a level assumption there.

Fifty-five million billion squillion infinities.

You can't get more than that.

frrostedman wrote:

at1with0 wrote:Here's the demonstration:
Every number has a greater successor.

Prove it. I don't believe you.

You don't? Seriously? I don't believe you.
That every number has a greater successor falls right out of the Peano axioms.

The point is, what you have is a theorem. It can't be proven concretely. Neither can a perfect circle. Theorems are fine, I get it, but they can't be proven -- so there is a level assumption there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ma ... cal_proofs

The only hope for ever proving anything lies within math. It's an ideal setting.

Btw, if you're going to say that it's only an assumption that math proofs prove maths, then how can you say that you are an adherent to Aristotle's logic? You said that logic was right all th etime and when it isn't it's our fault.
Do you believe this application of logic?
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is mortal

And since there is a largest number, I'd like to know what it is.

must resist the pull of the universal mind ( collective) break link or be lost in anomalies of delusion and self - in all things what is balance ?
but the mad deafening sound that comes from the juxtaposition of ideas.
the cacophony of vultures circling overhead.

in all this... it's hypnotic / seductive too familiar. the constant ego driven
Microcosm and disenfranchisement from reality and deluded sense of purpose in day to day living. ( might as well interface from an induced coma. )

to wake up from a dream and birth into insanity. wretched cruel irony.
I promise not to rip the moon from its orbit or hurl saturns rings into the
outer realms ...

ricardo wrote:is there a ' set point ' when prayer becomes magical thinking ?
and or 'medically ' an dangerous illness. ?

No.

What!!!!!!?????

Did I miss something here in regards to public education standards at work....???

I must have missed this post some time ago ..but just caught it and realized it does not make good nonsense against the claims of the devout religion of science.

I just got done explaining in my prior post to this how it's easier to believe the universe wasn't created by a "God":

"God" would be infinitely more complex than the universe. How can you think the universe, which is far less complex than "God", need to be created, while something infinitely more complex doesn't need to be created?

In other words, it's far more likely that the universe would come into existence on its own than it is for a "God" to come into existence on its own.

I believe you have to go to public school to get so backwards you make a statement like this and think no one would catch it ..once again.

If only God is so complex in regards to the Universe...His Creation....How is it that the Religion of science must constantly re think and re evaluate what it stated previously about the Universe??

The Universe is not simple or base...uncomplex. Nor is science that gifted that it can work around this.

Sometimes I think that in like manner to Humphries comment about Atheists and Satanists...some do not fully realize what they are posting putting Atheists, Sataists and ***holes together.

Here ..Humphries comments..from the thread on "The Church of Satan." Page 1.

Not anything to take seriously as a philosophy, just some ***holes screwing around. And yes, it has nothing to do with Satan at all, their beliefs are atheistic.

Now we have Event Horizon declaring that God is infinitely more complex than the universe. Yet...science must constantly revise, update, and revamp their views not only of the universe..but many things right here on earth.

Are some of you beginning to understand why sometimes I question pubilc education standards??

Think it through ..it makes sense ...unless you are stuck on public school standards.

Now the Word for this in the Bible is "worshipping the creature rather than the Creator."

There is another Bible Word or phrase for this type of conduct/thinking. I'll let some of you figure out what it is..unless public schooling gets in the way.


Thanks,
Orangetom

A lot of prayer is wishful thinking. If God is all that it is cracked up to be, then it already knows all of your wants and needs before you utter a prayer.

Magical thinking can become a detriment to "functioning" if you let society define you.