Conquer Club

zimmah wrote:
i fail to see how monogamy helps to get a more diverse genepool. wasn't the point in evolution to get a genepool as dverse as possible, and therefore its beneficial to have sex with as many persons of the opposite sex as possible? preferable persons with different genetic attributes?

and like others have stated before me, why are humans the ONLY animal that follow this rules, if it was so important for survival, wouldn't at least a few other animals show even the slightest signs of this behavoir? they don't.

diversity isn't inherently good. if humans had no diversity and pigs had immense diversity, humans would still be the dominant species from a survival standpoint.

also, monogamy occurs in nature

I can disprove some attributes given to him. For instance, the Argument from Omnipotence. All it is is three questions:

Is God omnipotent (i.e. can do anything?)
Is God immortal?
Can God kill himself?

everywhere116 wrote:I can disprove some attributes given to him. For instance, the Argument from Omnipotence. All it is is three questions:

Is God omnipotent (i.e. can do anything?)
Is God immortal?
Can God kill himself?

yes, god can chose to cease to exist. but why would he?

those kind of questions like "can god create a stone so heavy he can not carry it" are kinda bullshit questions and serve no purpose other then trolling. it does not prove Omnipotence and Omniscience are impossible, it just proves you can make some nice and useless paradoxes.

diversity isn't inherently good. if humans had no diversity and pigs had immense diversity, humans would still be the dominant species from a survival standpoint.

also, monogamy occurs in nature

i know monogamy happens in nature too.

and your point about humans and pigs is only half-true. if humans had no diversity, all humans would eventually die to a single disease before a cure can be found, because noone would have the time or even abilty to build an immunity against it. So even though humankind is capable of handling most situations better then other animals (i.e. we learn to adept much faster then most, if not all, other species found on earth) that doesn't mean that without diversity we have a stronger change to survive. And even then, what is the purpose of monogamy from an evolutionary point of view? what does it add to our chance of survival? and why would the bible been written in the first place? the quran, even though some consider it a holy book, with all due respect doesn't really count, because it was written after the bible, so one could argue that if the bible wouldn't have been written, the quran would also not have been written. also, why are human infinitly 'better' than any other species? we're a far too complex lifeform to have been evolved from other species, nothing comes even close. yes monkey DNA may be close, but monkey behavior does not come close. and even if you give monkeys another million years, they'll never magically become human.

zimmah wrote:

everywhere116 wrote:I can disprove some attributes given to him. For instance, the Argument from Omnipotence. All it is is three questions:

Is God omnipotent (i.e. can do anything?)
Is God immortal?
Can God kill himself?

yes, god can chose to cease to exist. but why would he?

those kind of questions like "can god create a stone so heavy he can not carry it" are kinda bullshit questions and serve no purpose other then trolling. it does not prove Omnipotence and Omniscience are impossible, it just proves you can make some nice and useless paradoxes.

Creating a stone he cannot lift is a logically impossible task, similar to "creating a square circle" and the like. Killing yourself is not. The point is that both omnipotence and immortality cannot exist, and as you've just pointed out God can end his own life, and if he can do that then he isn't immortal.

As for why he might want to, it doesn't matter, as long as he could if he wanted to.

everywhere116 wrote:

zimmah wrote:

everywhere116 wrote:I can disprove some attributes given to him. For instance, the Argument from Omnipotence. All it is is three questions:

Is God omnipotent (i.e. can do anything?)
Is God immortal?
Can God kill himself?

yes, god can chose to cease to exist. but why would he?

those kind of questions like "can god create a stone so heavy he can not carry it" are kinda bullshit questions and serve no purpose other then trolling. it does not prove Omnipotence and Omniscience are impossible, it just proves you can make some nice and useless paradoxes.

Creating a stone he cannot lift is a logically impossible task, similar to "creating a square circle" and the like. Killing yourself is not. The point is that both omnipotence and immortality cannot exist, and as you've just pointed out God can end his own life, and if he can do that then he isn't immortal.

As for why he might want to, it doesn't matter, as long as he could if he wanted to.

well the answer is simple, he can kill himself f he wanted to. that would also not prove he isn't immortal, because even immortal beings can chose to stop being immortal.

(i believe most angels are immortal too, but not to the point where god can't kill him, but to the point that they are no longer relying on god to survive, which means that IF god chose to cease to exist, the angels would still be able to live on without him, however the universe itself and all other forms of life will cease to exist without it's source (unless one of the angels has the ability to be the source instead of god, ultimately becoming the new god)

there's no indication of any plans of god to do so, however.

immortal does not mean one "can't" die it just means one does not "have to" die.

it's different to eternal life in the sense that eternal life is still relying on a source whereas immortal life does not rely on any source, they are their own source.

god promised mankind eternal life, i'm not sure about angels but i believe they have immortal life (however at least 33% of them, the ones that chose the side of the devil, will be destroyed nonetheless)

there's not anything that can kill god, besides himself. in that sense there's not a single possible scenario where he has to die.

Honestly...you don't get tired of this carp?

zimmah wrote:
well the answer is simple, he can kill himself f he wanted to. that would also not prove he isn't immortal, because even immortal beings can chose to stop being immortal.

Immortal

adjective
1. not mortal; not liable or subject to death; undying: our immortal souls.
2. remembered or celebrated through all time: the immortal words of Lincoln.
3. not liable to perish or decay; imperishable; everlasting.
4. perpetual; lasting; constant: an immortal enemy.
5. of or pertaining to immortal beings or immortality.

Not quite getting where you get the part that says an immortal being can end his own life if he wants to.

(i believe most angels are immortal too, but not to the point where god can't kill him, but to the point that they are no longer relying on god to survive, which means that IF god chose to cease to exist, the angels would still be able to live on without him, however the universe itself and all other forms of life will cease to exist without it's source (unless one of the angels has the ability to be the source instead of god, ultimately becoming the new god)

Kind of like Sheogorath.

everywhere116 wrote:

zimmah wrote:
well the answer is simple, he can kill himself f he wanted to. that would also not prove he isn't immortal, because even immortal beings can chose to stop being immortal.

Immortal

adjective
1. not mortal; not liable or subject to death; undying: our immortal souls.
2. remembered or celebrated through all time: the immortal words of Lincoln.
3. not liable to perish or decay; imperishable; everlasting.
4. perpetual; lasting; constant: an immortal enemy.
5. of or pertaining to immortal beings or immortality.

Not quite getting where you get the part that says an immortal being can end his own life if he wants to.

(i believe most angels are immortal too, but not to the point where god can't kill him, but to the point that they are no longer relying on god to survive, which means that IF god chose to cease to exist, the angels would still be able to live on without him, however the universe itself and all other forms of life will cease to exist without it's source (unless one of the angels has the ability to be the source instead of god, ultimately becoming the new god)

Kind of like Sheogorath.

how exactly can a dictionary define what god meant with the word immortal?

zimmah wrote:how exactly can a dictionary define what god meant with the word immortal?

How exactly can you define it?

There are lots of "gods" but only one "God".






Carry on.....

zimmah wrote:

everywhere116 wrote:

zimmah wrote:
well the answer is simple, he can kill himself f he wanted to. that would also not prove he isn't immortal, because even immortal beings can chose to stop being immortal.

Immortal

adjective
1. not mortal; not liable or subject to death; undying: our immortal souls.
2. remembered or celebrated through all time: the immortal words of Lincoln.
3. not liable to perish or decay; imperishable; everlasting.
4. perpetual; lasting; constant: an immortal enemy.
5. of or pertaining to immortal beings or immortality.

Not quite getting where you get the part that says an immortal being can end his own life if he wants to.

(i believe most angels are immortal too, but not to the point where god can't kill him, but to the point that they are no longer relying on god to survive, which means that IF god chose to cease to exist, the angels would still be able to live on without him, however the universe itself and all other forms of life will cease to exist without it's source (unless one of the angels has the ability to be the source instead of god, ultimately becoming the new god)

Kind of like Sheogorath.

how exactly can a dictionary define what god meant with the word immortal?

Did God ever specify what he meant by immortal? Why assume that God's definition of an immortal being is different from ours if that's the word he chose to describe himself?

jay_a2j wrote:There are lots of "gods" but only one "God".

Why is it that you believe the Muslim God to be the only one?

Woodruff wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:There are lots of "gods" but only one "God".

Why is it that you believe the Muslim God to be the only one?

Swimming right by the hook, not even paying attention to that juicy little worm.

jay_a2j wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:There are lots of "gods" but only one "God".

Why is it that you believe the Muslim God to be the only one?

Swimming right by the hook, not even paying attention to that juicy little worm.

Why are you afraid of the Muslim God, Jay?

everywhere116 wrote:

zimmah wrote:

everywhere116 wrote:

zimmah wrote:
well the answer is simple, he can kill himself f he wanted to. that would also not prove he isn't immortal, because even immortal beings can chose to stop being immortal.

Immortal

adjective
1. not mortal; not liable or subject to death; undying: our immortal souls.
2. remembered or celebrated through all time: the immortal words of Lincoln.
3. not liable to perish or decay; imperishable; everlasting.
4. perpetual; lasting; constant: an immortal enemy.
5. of or pertaining to immortal beings or immortality.

Not quite getting where you get the part that says an immortal being can end his own life if he wants to.

(i believe most angels are immortal too, but not to the point where god can't kill him, but to the point that they are no longer relying on god to survive, which means that IF god chose to cease to exist, the angels would still be able to live on without him, however the universe itself and all other forms of life will cease to exist without it's source (unless one of the angels has the ability to be the source instead of god, ultimately becoming the new god)

Kind of like Sheogorath.

how exactly can a dictionary define what god meant with the word immortal?

Did God ever specify what he meant by immortal? Why assume that God's definition of an immortal being is different from ours if that's the word he chose to describe himself?

by the time the bible was written there were no english dictionaries yet. the interpretation of the word immortal, among many other words that are used in the bible can only be known by comparing it to how the bible describes those words and the context the words are in.

by the time the bible was written there were no english dictionaries yet. the interpretation of the word immortal, among many other words that are used in the bible can only be known by comparing it to how the bible describes those words and the context the words are in.

And herein lies humanity's problem with understanding the divine, if there is such a thing.

Words are designed to describe human concepts. They are pretty bad at doing that.

Words aren't going to describe the universe when the people speaking cannot understand the universe.

And here endeth the non-lesson of ignorance.

DJ Teflon wrote:

by the time the bible was written there were no english dictionaries yet. the interpretation of the word immortal, among many other words that are used in the bible can only be known by comparing it to how the bible describes those words and the context the words are in.

And herein lies humanity's problem with understanding the divine, if there is such a thing.

Words are designed to describe human concepts. They are pretty bad at doing that.

Words aren't going to describe the universe when the people speaking cannot understand the universe.

And here endeth the non-lesson of ignorance.

you don't need to talk about the universe to understand the concept of a higher power.

there's no way to 'prove' god exists, nor is there a way to 'prove' he doesn't. but there's just so much that science and evolution can not explain, while the bible can explain it, that to me the only logical explanation is that there is a god.

I would doubt there is a God and if there is certainly not a Christian one.

Where do you get your faith from?

The Bible- After about 25 words of the book it is obviously nonsense and gets incredibly worse as it goes on. The new testament is a bit better but hardly.

The Church- Being a former Catholic my church was centered in the Vatican where contraception is worse than AIDS and bigotry is rife.

Within- Many people claim to have personally experienced there God(s) (and aliens) over the centuries so there is no way to determine which ones of you are deluded and which aren't (hint: you are all the same).

I personally don't think anyone really believes in Christianity, I am too optimistic about peoples intelligence.

i actually believe in the bible.

and i agree about your view on the catholic church. but then again, the catholic church doesn't really teach anything about the bible, and the mayority of the leaders of that church are not really giving a good example either.

and yes, i am a christian, as the new testament (and even the old testament) clearly states that jesus is the one who spilt his blood to pay for our sins.

zimmah wrote: there's no way to 'prove' god exists, nor is there a way to 'prove' he doesn't. but there's just so much that science and evolution can not explain, while the bible can explain it, that to me the only logical explanation is that there is a god.

Here's the two options on approaching unexplainable fact X.
1. We don't yet know how X happens, maybe we'll figure it out in the future, maybe not.
2. God did X. I can't explain God though, I just know he did X.

Why are you so afraid of saying "I don't know" that you must invent an omnipotent being just to avoid admitting your lack of knowledge?

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

zimmah wrote: there's no way to 'prove' god exists, nor is there a way to 'prove' he doesn't. but there's just so much that science and evolution can not explain, while the bible can explain it, that to me the only logical explanation is that there is a god.

Here's the two options on approaching unexplainable fact X.
1. We don't yet know how X happens, maybe we'll figure it out in the future, maybe not.
2. God did X. I can't explain God though, I just know he did X.

Why are you so afraid of saying "I don't know" that you must invent an omnipotent being just to avoid admitting your lack of knowledge?

why are you so afraid of believing there is a god, does it hurt you or anyone to believe in our creator?

zimmah wrote:but there's just so much that science and evolution can not explain,

Such as what? What exactly can't science explain that you would want it to explain?

zimmah, there is a difference between "can not explain" and "has not yet explained"

science theoretically can explain just about everything. religion can explain some of the same things that science can, which is why religion falls under the umbrella of science

Why did we start a new thread, couldnt we have bumped one of the old ones?!

zimmah wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

zimmah wrote: there's no way to 'prove' god exists, nor is there a way to 'prove' he doesn't. but there's just so much that science and evolution can not explain, while the bible can explain it, that to me the only logical explanation is that there is a god.

Here's the two options on approaching unexplainable fact X.
1. We don't yet know how X happens, maybe we'll figure it out in the future, maybe not.
2. God did X. I can't explain God though, I just know he did X.

Why are you so afraid of saying "I don't know" that you must invent an omnipotent being just to avoid admitting your lack of knowledge?

why are you so afraid of believing there is a god, does it hurt you or anyone to believe in our creator?

1. Nice deflection of my question.

2. I don't belive in god for the same reason I don't believe in Allah, in black cats causing bad luck and in The Loch Ness Monster. Do you think I'm afraid of believing in all of those things?

3. Yes it does. Irrationality breeds all sorts of problems. Can you really not think of instances where belief in gods has led to suffering?