I'm not sure if my post is relevant. But most of us actually think of God as a person. We've been conditioned to think that way. We talk of God as if "He" has human emotions and has a lot of interest in the trivialities of our day to day life. In my opinion, God will always remain a mystery to the humankind. Just like an ant in your room doesn't have any idea about the light coming from the lamp at your desk, human beings will never understand the intricacies of life and creation.
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,650,000,000 for Google. Results 1 - 10 of about 2,260,000,000 for Yahoo Results 1 - 10 of about 1,800,000,000 for Man Results 1 - 10 of about 675,000,000 for Microsoft Results 1 - 10 of about 535,000,000 for God Results 1 - 10 of about 441,000,000 for Linux Results 1 - 10 of about 311,000,000 for Obama Results 1 - 10 of about 31,100,000 for Mohammed Results 1 - 10 of about 28,800,000 for Buddha Results 1 - 10 of about 26,400,000 for Caesar
God is the product of man. Cheese is the product of Mold. Cheese, being tangible, is thus superior to God. All hail Cheese.
Jesus CHRIST is a part of CHRISTianity you friggin moron. He didn't practice anything. He preached a religion that people followed. CHRISTianity (and the bible) didn't exist before CHRIST. But nice try for a play on words. That's like saying "OH YEAH!! well what holiday did Santa Claus practice? HAHA GOTCHA!". I can't say I'm surprised that you've resorted to asking questions that only make sense to lunatics. But it sure is entertaining. Did you just ask me what is religion according to scripture? Seriously dude? lolwut?
Nehemiah, do you even comprehend what others have put forth in this debate? They speak with knowledge backed by facts and reasons. You, on the other hand, speak with ignorance backed by, up to this point, nothing. Almost in all of your replies you tried to somehow disqualify others by writing some ridiculous remark demanding things to be answered but you failed to realize that the question has already been answered. It's like talking to a 5 years old - you don't know any better. You crossed the point where idiocracy exists, looked back, and continued running. I hope you get far enough in life to truly understand the actual meaning of life. May God 'truly' be with you.
WoWoWo.......I guess you're an atheist..and most of you pretend to be masters of science...as far as I know Science says Universe is not eternal. It started from one point and will end in another...!
Sarnac says: The Answer is: The Question is: What words did he utter just after removal of finger from diaper's rear?
I am still waiting for any historical proof that this Jesus guy even existed, do you have any? On the other hand what kind of relationship do you think he was preaching, living with 12 men according to the story? San Francisco must be the ultimate realization of his preaching.
There's certainly something very homoerotic about christianity in particular. For one, the guys seem to be a lot more into the "relationship" side of it than the women are, And when they aren't talking about loving him and feeling him inside them they are practicing something which could equally be described as simulated oral sex as it could simulated cannibalism. "This is my body, now put it in your mouth...." - jesus
Say that to an undercover police officer and you are toasted. May be George Michael was preaching Jesus when he was arrested in a public toilet.
a). Whatever you believe, does not change the nature of God. If, as science as already proven, there is already one Universe*, then as God encompasses all of the Universe, there is one God. Whatever someone decides to call God, doesn't change what already is. * There is something called "String Theory" that posits parallel universes. I reject this, it is more of a String Philosophy because you can't test it. b) No, there is not. At best, an argument can be made that there are two Christian gods - the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament. Christianity holds that they are different aspects of the same being. c) Evidence of God's existence. The existence of God can be implied in two ways: the first is by Entropy, and the second is by Parallelism. Entropy, roughly speaking, is the amount of randomness in a closed system. As time goes on, left on it's own, the amount of randomness of a closed system will increase until as it's energy is spent and it is completely broken down into disorder. Applied to the Universe, the amount of entropy (randomness) in the Universe will increase until it is completely broken down and spent. HOWEVER, this begs the question, what initial force placed the Universe in it's initial stage of zero entropy? THIS is the Ultimate Question (42?) that always comes into being in any physics classroom whenever entropy is seriously discussed. Physics actually postulates the existence of a "Prime Mover" (capitals required to differentiate from "prime mover" in small systems) that started it all. Physics does not attempt to identify the Prime Mover, but leaves that to the student. You really need to see the math on this to feel it's importance, as my simple argument here doesn't give it enough credit. Parallelism. Briefly stated (I don't have all day to write this), biological systems tend to aggregate to create larger systems with a more powerful group intelligence. Billions of living cells will group together for form a human. Humans can group together to form a family, families can group together to form a town, towns form a state, then countries, then continents, planets, solar systems, system groups, galaxies, galaxtic groups - EACH CAN AFFECT EXTERNAL ENTITIES AND HAS A PURPOSE. Even countries exhibit the behavior of single beings - they take in energy and raw materials, exhibit behavior, and excrete waste. If you've ever been a part of a crowd (and studies have been done about this) a crowd forms a sort of "hive mind" where most or all minds think and act together (think concerts, rallies, etc). Parellelism also dictates that the larger the system, the longer it exists. A family lasts longer than any individual member, etc. The Parallelism theory states that an extreme logical extension of all of this is that ALL living things compose one thinking organism - God. However, expecting one single person to understand God is like expecting a cell in your finger to understand human consciousness (Consciousness denies atheism).
The Catholic Church proof is: 1) The first few books of the New Testament of the Bible has been proven to be historically and culturally accurate when compared to other documents of the time, 2) The historically accurate New Testament says that Jesus Christ existed, 3) Therefore, Jesus Christ is proved as an historical figure What we today consider to be the four gospels were just some of many documents that were considered to be HISTORICAL accounts of the time. But just because someone put these documents together and made them the basis of a religion doesn't make them any less historical. There are fewer ancient documents in existence today that mention Julius Caesar than mention Jesus Christ, yet nobody doubts that Julius Caesar existed. But if you took every ancient document that mention Caesar, bound them together into a book, and formed a religion called "Caesarism", would that make the historical existence of Julius Caesar any less real?
Unfortunately, that the universe comes from a black hole (or a singularity) negates this. Black holes do strange things to the matter that falls inside of them. Parallelism seems to be more of an analogy, and extrapolation, more than anything else. The 'god' you expound in this "Theory" (I think it's more mysticism, personally) a) Only has 'power' over living things, specifically living things in earth's biosphere. b) Is not universal, since a different biosphere would have a different 'god'. c) Isn't really that powerful, the earth's biosphere uses about 20 petawatts. This may seem like a lot, but it isn't, really. it's about 40% more than humanity uses at the moment. d) Can't break the laws of physics- and as such isn't really that powerful.
What a BS. A story book about an imaginary person is accurate and therefor the imaginary person existed. Do you understand how stupid this line of reasoning is? There is many historical documents from the time this imaginary person existed which mentions many less significant events but some how omit any mention of this son of God with all his miracles. The simple truth is there is no historical proof that such a person even existed.