Rank: ? (4329)
Member #: 5260

I must be missing the point in somewhere in this topic. It seemed that penis and prick are flying all over the place.

Well, I'm feeling hungry now. So anyone to join me and have some hot dogs?

Rank: ? (1224)
Member #: 15685

What a strange way to get you hungry...

Rank: ? (644)
Member #: 25349

 accident writes...


Oh please, that would be so very inconvenient to be murdered. How 'bout we put you down in pencil on my calendar for later next year. That would be better. Perhaps we could discuss timelines so folks could work out the pesky pre-death details. That would be considerate and most helpful.

Kindly,

YmirGF

PS: I don't believe in accidents.

Rank: ? (4574)
Member #: 51

I'm not sure what physical law this topic is following but it sure is entertaining.

Rank: ? (37)
Member #: 27371

 raza101 writes...


Interesting, phycical law states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. I don't see how that can be so. I mean, think about it. Scientists are changing their minds all the time about things. The very things that they originally used to refute the idea of a creator, have all changed, but I suppose they have new stuff now.

I sometimes like to think of the universe as a game created on a computer. You can set all the boundaries on a computer, you can break them, or you can just delete the whole game.

If physics observes what happens and makes heaps of conclusions based on that, then what happens when they have made a mistake in their conlusions? Is it possible that even some of the fundamentals are incorrect?
And wouldn't one need to take into account everything that has ever happened, and everything that will ever happen so that they can then work out their conlusions?
That would then lead to the question of how to prove or disprove something happened.

I don't pretend to be an expert on physics by the way. It's obvious that I'm not. I know next to nothing about it.

I reckon that there should be a big court trial, where all the evidences for and against are brought forth and examined. But what if you have a biased judge, or one who accepts bribes? Or if one lawyer is better at convincing the judge than another?

Oh, I think a pressupposition that science has, is that there is no creator. So much of what scientists say already assumes it.
Suppose for a second there was a creator, who was all powerful. Couldn't he change or break the laws if he wanted to? And being all powerful, couldn't he then make or destroy matter?

I prefer to believe there is a God, for many reasons apart from seeing the proof. One is that it gives my life purpose. Another is because it explains so much. Another is that it means that there is something bigger than man, which I like. I have a way to escape guilt, rather than surpressing it, or denying that there is sin. I have someone I can depend on who can help me in ways no one else can. I have a future. I get to be a friend of the almighty God (can you imagine being friends with the creator of the universe, supposing he is infinitely more likeable than any human?)

Ok, chow!!