Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Do humans have needed kno...
Yesterday at 09:03 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
Yesterday at 09:50 AM

What's happened to the fo...
October 06, 2025, 11:58 AM

New Britain
October 05, 2025, 08:07 AM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
October 05, 2025, 07:55 AM

Kashmir endgame
October 04, 2025, 10:05 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
October 04, 2025, 09:23 AM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
October 02, 2025, 12:03 PM

الحبيب من يشبه اكثر؟؟؟
by akay
September 24, 2025, 11:55 AM

Muslim grooming gangs sti...
September 20, 2025, 07:39 PM

Jesus mythicism
by zeca
September 13, 2025, 10:59 PM

Orientalism - Edward Said
by zeca
August 22, 2025, 07:41 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: The Quest for Truth: Balance.

 (Read 26991 times)
  • Previous page 1 23 4 ... 7 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #30 - July 21, 2010, 10:56 PM

    "Agnosticism" does not imply any particular stance about God.

    Agnosticism is simply a position about "ultimate truths" not being knowable.

    So, when it comes to the existence of God, it's possible to be:
    Agnostic AND believing (by faith alone) that God exists (also known as Agnostic Theist)
    Agnostic AND not believing that God exists (also known as Agnostic Atheist)
    Agnostic AND believing (by faith alone) that God does not exist (this does not have any label, as far as I know)

    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #31 - July 21, 2010, 11:02 PM

    By the way...
    It's also perfectly possible not to have a position about the existence nor inexistence of God WITHOUT being Agnostic.
    Like me.

    And I am not Agnostic because I am too skeptic to claim something like "no ultimate truth is knowable" :S

    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #32 - July 21, 2010, 11:05 PM

    LOL@olweasel

    What the hell is up with your avatar!

    And btw, Tlaloc, your posts are spot on  Afro
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #33 - July 21, 2010, 11:25 PM

    i get worked up when the extremely ill defined term 'god' is used in conversation.
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #34 - July 22, 2010, 12:23 AM

    "Agnosticism" does not imply any particular stance about God.

    Agnosticism is simply a position about "ultimate truths" not being knowable.

    "Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable."

    You still fit given that definition.

    Unknown and unknowable mean two different things.

    You could be agnostic in the sense by simply saying that you don't know - or claim in addition that it is also impossible for anyone to find out.


    And I am not Agnostic because I am too skeptic to claim something like "no ultimate truth is knowable" :S

    Or that "god is above reason" or "incomprehensible by humans".  Roll Eyes

    "Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but of playing a poor hand well."
    - Robert Louis Stevenson
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #35 - July 22, 2010, 05:34 AM

    Yeah, but reality doesn't abide by our limited perceptions of it. You can never be sure  about what might be true or what might actually exist.


    I have never heard this argument before, I disagree.

    One of the greatest difficulties in scientific observation is not changing what is being observed. Regardless of of our observations reality remains reality regarless of how we percieve it. Science has little to do with perception, it is wholly concerned with understanding

    I am certain that I am really truly deeply typing on a computer, I am certain that this computer runs on electricity and I am certain that both the computer and the electricity actually exist.

    **BANNED**

    Stephen Roberts:    "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours"
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #36 - July 22, 2010, 06:06 AM

    It always has always amazed me how the greatest forces in theisim is  provided by science which is also the most corosive force to theisim.


    A statement like "the ultimate truth is unknowable" really pisses me off. It's the same as saying "the Lord works in mysterious ways".

    as far as I'm concerned there is nothing that is unknowable, we are just limited by our intelligence and technology both of which are improving. I find it insulting to suggest that there is something that I will never understand.


    Islame I find your adhominem attack insulting if you wish to continue with your suggestion that I am being dishonest please do so in my introduction thread or in a new thread rather than take this thread off topic.

    when something is 99.7% certain ( three standard deviations from the mean) it's regarded as a statistical certainty. Not one single sample that humans have taken from the population (the universe) points to Gods. Not a single one. There are no gods, this is a statistical certainty.



    **BANNED**

    Stephen Roberts:    "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours"
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #37 - July 22, 2010, 06:08 AM

    Even Socrates admitted to knowing nothing, so you must be really damn arrogant to think not only that you know something, but everything.

    Yes, the ultimate truth is unknowable. If it weren't, science wouldn't exist. After all, it operates under the belief that there's always something more out there to be discovered (Read: Black Swan Phenomenon).
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #38 - July 22, 2010, 06:31 AM

    Im beginning to realize that much of my devotion, and faith
    (both in xianity and islam) were in fact fear-based.  To even
    THINK there might NOT be a god scared the crap out of me,
    not to mention having it engrained that it was blasphemy
    to even consider thinking that thought.  All boiled down to
    hell fire for me.

    Does it really matter what nametag one wears?  Each individual
    has such varying reasons and degrees for their beliefs, or lack thereof
    that to adhere to one nametag is .. well, ludecrous LOL.  At varying
    times i am "athiest", at other times, im "agnostic", depending on
    my thought processes at the moment. WHO CARES! LOL

    When one door of happiness closes, another opens; but often we look so long at the closed door that we do not see the one which has been opened for us.
    Helen Keller
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #39 - July 22, 2010, 07:11 AM

    Aboob

    What you have done is demonstrate a strawman argument. You have misstated my position and then you have attacked the position you think I have.

    I never said I know everthing, therefore attacking that position that only you allege that I have, is pointless.

    I'm quite sure Socrates knew when he needed a shit so your "appeal to authority" doesn't work either. unless it is that you are In the habit of taking advice from people with shitty arses.

    theres a big difference between "unknown" and "unknowable". Its the unknown that motivates science, the concept of "Unknowable" is contradictory to science.

    **BANNED**

    Stephen Roberts:    "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours"
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #40 - July 22, 2010, 07:21 AM

    Jinn

    The only definition of Atheisim I accept is " one who rejects belief in Gods". this definition says nothing about my beliefs only that I reject the beliefs of others.

    these "others" themselves also reject belief in more Gods then they accept belief in. Therefore everyone sic is an Athiest.

    I find the world as it is, without gods, far more scary then a world with Gods, theres nothing wrong with fear, fear sharpens us, it motivates and protects us.

    **BANNED**

    Stephen Roberts:    "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours"
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #41 - July 22, 2010, 09:06 AM

    According to the literal meaning of the word "gnostic" here are the definitions:

    Deist = Someone who believes in a non personal god
    Theist = Someone who believes in a personal god
    Atheist = Someone who does not believe in a personal god
    Gnostic = Someone who claims to have knowledge of god
    Agnostic = Someone who claims you cannot have knowledge of god

    Therefore it is possible to be a:
    Gnostic deist (I know what god wants, but it doesn't interfere)
    Gnostic theist (I know what god wants, and god helps people in their lives)
    Agnostic theist (I don't know what god wants, I see no evidence of interference, but I think it exists)
    Agnostic atheist (I don't know what god wants, I see no evidence of interference, and I see no evidence it exists)

    Agnostic is not an opposite for theist or atheist, but because it can mean either that god does or does not exist it is often seen as a middle ground.

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #42 - July 22, 2010, 10:09 AM

    "Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable."

    Agnosticism is about what is (currently and not currently) knowable, not what is currently known.

    You probably quoted that from wikipedia.
    But if you follow the wikipedia source for that statement you will get this: http://skepdic.com/agnosticism.html

    I have no idea why they worded it like that on wikipedia :S

    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #43 - July 22, 2010, 10:12 AM

    Being agnostic about something is the equivalent of saying "i cannot know (...)" and not the equivalent of saying "i do not know (...)".

    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #44 - July 22, 2010, 10:13 AM

    Agnosticism is about what is (currently and not currently) knowable, not what is currently known.

    You probably quoted that from wikipedia.
    But if you follow the wikipedia source for that statement you will get this: http://skepdic.com/agnosticism.html

    I have no idea why they worded it like that on wikipedia :S


    It's being bastardised.  It's a-GNOSTIC, Gnostic means "knowledge about".  You can be an agnostic theist, believe in god but accept that there is no way of knowing ABOUT god.

    Agnostic is to believe you cannot know, people infer the part "about the existence of god" and have also started to imply it too, but it's not automatically inclusive.

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #45 - July 22, 2010, 11:05 AM

    I have never heard this argument before, I disagree.

    One of the greatest difficulties in scientific observation is not changing what is being observed. Regardless of of our observations reality remains reality regarless of how we percieve it. Science has little to do with perception, it is wholly concerned with understanding

    I am certain that I am really truly deeply typing on a computer, I am certain that this computer runs on electricity and I am certain that both the computer and the electricity actually exist.


    That's not really what I was driving at.

    But you said: Regardless of of our observations reality remains reality regarless of how we percieve it.

    Exactly. The way that reality really is is not affected by how we perceive it. Therefore, to try to impose our limited knowledge and understanding of reality onto it is doomed to failure.

    But you say that you base your assertion on observation, and that observation tells us that deities, or similar beings, don't exist. But that assertion itself is contingent upon our limited observation and knowledge. So our observation of reality is limited, so how can we expect that it encompasses all aspects of reality?

    Your immediate perceptions may be reliable up to a point, but they're not absolutely so, by any means. You can't sense the vast part of the electromagnetic spectrum, nor the many kinds of subatomic particles. Both our perceptions and observational data are limited, and so we can't in all honesty say that, on the basis of these things, we understand what is possible within reality as a whole.

    Like Richard Feynman said, If you think you understand quantum theory, you don't understand quantum theory.
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #46 - July 22, 2010, 11:53 AM

    If we for the sake of argument assume that God might exist outside of our universe then wouldn't it be impossible to 'know' whether He does exist or not - since we can not make any observations outside our own universe. How could it be possible to ultimately tell that this universe was created by an intelligent being or not when all we can observe is the creation/our universe?

    In addition OAK, I'm not sure if I misunderstood you (please correct me if I'm wrong) but are you saying that you think there is evidence that any sort of Creator God doesn't exist (I doubt you are saying this) or are you saying that one day it might be possible that we will find scientific evidence that a Creator God does not exist? What scientific eveidence makes you think that a God(s) does not exist or could you at least speculate or give us some sort of vague idea of what type of scientific evidence we might one day come across that might lead us to the conclusion that there is no God?

    In general it seems everyone has there own definition of the word 'Agnostic' - which is cool but a little bit confusing. I always thought it meant the existence of God (or not) is currently unknowable but that does not rule out the possibility that it might one day be knowable. In that case that would make me an Agnostic Theist - I beleive there is a God but realise that at present this is unknowable.

    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #47 - July 22, 2010, 11:56 AM

    are you saying that one day it might be possible that we will find scientific evidence that a Creator God does not exist?


    I don't think it is possible to prove an unrestrictive negative.  Although it would be possible to prove that god NO LONGER exists if we first find god and discover it is dead.

    I think one day we will discover the cause of the universe and I strongly suspect it will be a natural process.  The question then will become "Yes, but what caused the cause of the universe?" Smiley

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #48 - July 22, 2010, 12:08 PM

    Quote
    I think one day we will discover the cause of the universe and I strongly suspect it will be a natural process.  The question then will become "Yes, but what caused the cause of the universe?"


    Do you think it will be possible to know where the pure vacuum energy that gave birth to our Universe 'came from' i.e. do you envisage that one day this might be explained scientifically - i.e. how it appeared, why it appeared and from where it came from? In addition do you think we might know what caused it to ''bang'' i.e. will we one day have a scientific explanation of what triggered the inflation. I think both questions will be difficult but the second one seems more 'answerable' in a relative sense than the first.

    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #49 - July 22, 2010, 12:15 PM

    'god' is a loose and imprecise term. define god before you present arguments about your position.
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #50 - July 22, 2010, 12:19 PM

    i'm not presenting an argument about my position but just asking a question. but in this case by 'God' i simply mean a being or agent that intelligently created our universe

    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #51 - July 22, 2010, 01:00 PM

    wasn't talking specifically to you. anyone really. very hard to know whats meant by an 'agnostic theist' or 'gnostic atheist' or whatever without a precise definition of god.
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #52 - July 22, 2010, 01:03 PM


    http://i.imgur.com/kte6q.png

    Pakistan Zindabad? ya Pakistan sey Zinda bhaag?

    Long Live Pakistan? Or run with your lives from Pakistan?
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #53 - July 22, 2010, 01:24 PM

    Do you think it will be possible to know where the pure vacuum energy that gave birth to our Universe 'came from' i.e. do you envisage that one day this might be explained scientifically - i.e. how it appeared, why it appeared and from where it came from? In addition do you think we might know what caused it to ''bang'' i.e. will we one day have a scientific explanation of what triggered the inflation. I think both questions will be difficult but the second one seems more 'answerable' in a relative sense than the first.


    I have no idea what we will learn in the future.  I have no idea about most of what mankind has already learned Smiley

    What I think we will discover is where the matter came from for the initial expansion of the universe.  I think we will also discover what caused this expansion and also what causes it to continue.  If the answer is "creator god", that would be great, but I suspect it won't be.

    But of course in the meantime there is always the answer "We don't yet know".  This is the answer that theists struggle with; that is until you ask where their creator god came from, at which point they are happy to accept that there are questions they don't have answers to as long as that point is reached AFTER the word "god" appears in the list of answers.

    What is certain though is that I relish every new discovery, they can be amazing!

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #54 - July 22, 2010, 02:08 PM

    Quote
    What I think we will discover is where the matter came from for the initial expansion of the universe.  I think we will also discover what caused this expansion and also what causes it to continue.  If the answer is "creator god", that would be great, but I suspect it won't be


    personally i'm not sure we'll ever have a scientific description of where the pure vacuum energy that gave birth to our universe came from or how it appeared - but i don't rule it out. regarding inflation/expansion - i think it's likely we will one day figure out what happened scientifically - if we're smart enough which I think is likely (not any of us obviously, lol). i think we will be able to have a full scientific description of what occured during initial burst of inflation and exactly  how and why the universe  continues to expand. However I do feel the question of what triggered/caused the intial burst of inflation (what some people refer to as the ''bang'') will be much more difficult to answer. In general i'm not asking whether we'll know if a creator God 'did anything' but I'm asking whether it's possible that we can achieve scientific descriptions of fundamental aspects regarding the birth of our universe.

    Quote
    But of course in the meantime there is always the answer "We don't yet know".  This is the answer that theists struggle with; that is until you ask where their creator god came from, at which point they are happy to accept that there are questions they don't have answers to as long as that point is reached AFTER the word "god" appears in the list of answers.


    personally, I don't have a problem at all with saying 'we don't know yet' - i just, like you, look forward to every discovery but I bear in mind there may well be things that we cannot acheive scientific descriptions of - this of course does not necessarily mean that a creator God did anything (in fact like Zebedee mentioned earlier there are things even regarding funamental theories of physics such as quantum theory that we do not understand (measurement problem/copenhagen interpretation etc.) - in essence we lack fundamental knowledge of how the theory works - even though we can describe it fully using mathematics and make precise predictions - this does not necessarily mean that God created it etc. - we just lack the knowledge.).
    But - and this is a big but - although I think it's ok to ask where the energy that gave birth to out universe came from (we should ask this of course) I don't think we have any right to ask where God came from. The energy that gave birth to our universe should be able to be explained by science - it's part of our universe - we can make scientific enquiry about it using our logic. however, we can not make any scientific enquiry about where God came from whatsoever - it might even be possible that God always existed somehow, but it's wrong to try and use human logic to try and think about how this might be possible. Our science only exists within our universe as far as we know and we can not make any assumptions about comparing our logic or science with anything outside our universe - including a God if He exists.

    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #55 - July 22, 2010, 02:25 PM

    "But - and this is a big but - although I think it's ok to ask where the energy that gave birth to out universe came from (we should ask this of course) I don't think we have any right to ask where God came from. The energy that gave birth to our universe should be able to be explained by science - it's part of our universe - we can make scientific enquiry about it using our logic. however, we can not make any scientific enquiry about where God came from whatsoever - it might even be possible that God always existed somehow, but it's wrong to try and use human logic to try and think about how this might be possible. Our science only exists within our universe as far as we know and we can not make any assumptions about comparing our logic or science with anything outside our universe - including a God if He exists"

    there is fucking nothing known about 'god' at all. and never will be. god is a placeholder term for 'that which created everything, if there is such a thing'. i have no idea where more assertions about this placeholder terms are pulled out of. how do you know if 'god' can or can't be grasped by human logic or not?
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #56 - July 22, 2010, 02:25 PM

    However I do feel the question of what triggered/caused the intial burst of inflation (what some people refer to as the ''bang'') will be much more difficult to answer.


    One scientific theory explains how the vacuum energy spontaneously splits into matter/anti-matter all around us all of the time, but gravity then pulls them together and they convert back into energy.  Hawkins theorised that because anti-matter is heavier than matter any occurrence close the the event horizon of a black hole would result in the matter escaping and the anti-matter being pulled into the black hole; this anti-matter would make the black hole less dense and over time would result in the black hole exploding and releasing its matter into the universe.  If I understand correctly this has now been observed in the form of black hole radiation.

    I don't think it would be too far fetched to think that some derivative of this (where matter clumps together) could build up over a very long time forming an incredibly massive black hole which eventually would explode and create a universe.  Once the matter in our universe has spread out and died its cold death there will be nothing but a massive empty space for this to happen again - it could already be happening elsewhere.

    I don't think the "cause" of the expansion is beyond us, I think we will discover it within my lifetime (Insha anna) Smiley

    What the cause the vacuum energy is though is a much tougher question I suspect.


    I don't think we have any right to ask where God came from


    Why not? Do you fear that creator god will be offended?  You are presuming that creator god has feelings, and that it is intelligent.  Creator god might be a one-trick-pony capable only of creating universes and nothing else (no compassion, conversation, nothing).  Creator god may even have been a one-hit wonder and ceased to exist at the point the current formation of the universe occurred.

    In short I suspect you feel you have no right to question because you see creator god as a figure of authority who might be easily angered or upset.  This is due to a claim of knowledge about creator god which you cannot substantiate.  How for example do you know that creator god isn't already upset that we worked out how to split the atom, or how to split the frequencies of light through a prism?  Maybe creator god wants all of its creation to be a secret and not just its own origin.  If such a thing exists you have no way of knowing what upsets it or even if it is capable of being / willing to be upset.

    So with that in mind, what's wrong with "Where did creator god come from?"  Maybe this is the only thing creator god cannot work out, so it created a massive logic processor in the form of the universe in order to become aware of itself, then aware of its creator, and then ultimate the source of the creators creation?  If we refuse to find the answer maybe creator god will scrap the current universe as a failed prototype and start again with a new one.

    Without answers you cannot know which questions are offensive.


    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #57 - July 22, 2010, 02:35 PM


    there is fucking nothing known about 'god' at all. and never will be. god is a placeholder term for 'that which created everything, if there is such a thing'. i have no idea where more assertions about this placeholder terms are pulled out of. how do you know if 'god' can or can't be grasped by human logic or not?


    no need to get over-excited dude. i'm not saying I know that God can't be grapsed by human logic - just that it's possible that he can't be grasped with human logic - we'll never know.

    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #58 - July 22, 2010, 02:39 PM

    no need to get over-excited dude. i'm not saying I know that God can't be grapsed by human logic - just that it's possible that he can't be grasped with human logic - we'll never know.


    I too am thinking of something which is unknowable by humans. It has no name. It created god with the single task of creating universes.  Creator god itself cannot comprehend it.  Creator god doesn't even know if this thing exists or not but it believes in it through faith, creator god knows this other thing must exist otherwise "How would I exist?" Smiley

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #59 - July 22, 2010, 02:45 PM

    Why not? Do you fear that creator god will be offended?  You are presuming that creator god has feelings, and that it is intelligent.  Creator god might be a one-trick-pony capable only of creating universes and nothing else (no compassion, conversation, nothing).  Creator god may even have been a one-hit wonder and ceased to exist at the point the current formation of the universe occurred.

    In short I suspect you feel you have no right to question because you see creator god as a figure of authority who might be easily angered or upset.  This is due to a claim of knowledge about creator god which you cannot substantiate.  How for example do you know that creator god isn't already upset that we worked out how to split the atom, or how to split the frequencies of light through a prism?  Maybe creator god wants all of its creation to be a secret and not just its own origin.  If such a thing exists you have no way of knowing what upsets it or even if it is capable of being / willing to be upset.

    So with that in mind, what's wrong with "Where did creator god come from?"  Maybe this is the only thing creator god cannot work out, so it created a massive logic processor in the form of the universe in order to become aware of itself, then aware of its creator, and then ultimate the source of the creators creation?  If we refuse to find the answer maybe creator god will scrap the current universe as a failed prototype and start again with a new one.

    Without answers you cannot know which questions are offensive.




    I think you totally misunderstood. I didn't mean we have no right to ask it because God might get angry or whatever you were saying - what I was trying to say is that we don't know for sure if human logic/science can be applied to anything outside our own universe. For all we know science outside our universe may be completely different to the science that governs our universe  and what human logic is custom to. therefore although it's ok to ask anything and everything about things within our universe such as where did the energy that gave birth to our universe come from etc. i don't think it's sensible to ask where God came from etc. - for all we know he could have existed forever although this would be contradictory to the science and logic that we are used to. there is no way we can make any intelligent statements about anything outside our universe - including the nature of God and how and why he exists (if he does indeed exist) - everything is mere speculation.

    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Previous page 1 23 4 ... 7 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »