It can be explained by default:

Today, I fell down and hurt myself. Wait, I wonder, is it possible to fall down and not hurt myself? Is it possible not to have a physical body at all?

Ok, last year, a relative of mine died. That made me wonder if it is possible for someone to not die.

Ok, last week, my cousin gave birth to a child. That made me think about birth, and whether it is possible for something to exist before being born.

Man, I was late for work today. I hate how I am always subject to the rigours of time. Isn't it possible to live in a state beyond time, where you don't bother about all this stuff?


You know, all this has made me think about myself real hard. I am a human being, I am a physical entity who is subject to time, and space, and who is born and dies. Maybe, it is possible that there is someone or something who, unlike me, is not limited by space and time, was never born and will never die, and unlike me, who am obviously imperfect, as I get sick, and die, is perfect.

What if that being exists, and what if I was created by Him/Her (It?), but in an imperfect way. What if everything around me, which is subject to the limitations of space and time, is subject to that being who is beyond space and time, and perfect?

What if there is a God?

Also, let me add:

Plato had the Theory of Forms, where everything in this world, including us, is an imitation of an ideal, perfect entity, located in what is lovingly called "Plato's Heaven". In other words, there is no perfect chair anywhere in the world, and all chairs are imitations of that perfect chair there. We have an idea of that perfect chair, however.

As well, there is no perfect circle or triangle anywhere on Earth. You will never find one. Atoms constantly move, so they are never aligned in such a way as for the lines of a triangle to perfectly align themselves. So where do we get this idea of a perfect circle and traingle from?

A number of mathematicians actually agree with Plato, that we have innate knowledge of this, since it's really not something that our environment can teach us (how is it possible for a perfect triangle to have made it into our minds when nothing in the world could be the basis for it?).

Mathematics, in many ways, is the closest we have ever come to God.

Here's a little mindbender.

Can God create a rock he can't lift? If he can't create it, he can't do everything. But then let's say he does create the rock, but if he can't lift it, he can't do everything.

I asked my parents this one a long time ago, they decided to ignore the mindbender and go--"God can do everything."

You guys worry far too much. If you are a decent person, it doesn't make any difference if there is a god or not, for surely he woudln't be so petty as to care if you believe in him, only whether you are good. It's the bastards who have to worry about that kind of thing, relax.

Your so witty!

I LOVE that mindbender. I heard it a long time ago and I'm glad you brought it up. :grin:

Since we were supposed to be perfect, according to the Bible, but Adam & Eve sinned, that would obviously make us a mistake. If we are a mistake, God makes mistakes. If God makes mistakes, he's not quite perfect, and capable of doing everything. ...


:wink:

Thing is...he created everyone with free will

That was a big fucking mistake now, wasn't it?

No, I think he knew we would fail. But, God knowing the future, that's a WHOLE different debate. We have that debate a lot in church.

If the Christian God exists, he is like a kid with an ant farm, a magnifying glass, a sun above him (unblocked by clouds), a bottle of alcohol, and various tiny torture devices. He knows what will happen when he does something, he just enjoys witnessing the spectacle.

That's a well-known question, asked, in many variations, and actually has a technical name. But basically, it's a smart-ass question.

Let's take the approach of arguing for/against it via the form of a philosophical argument:


Premise 1. God is by definition perfect.

2. Since God is perfect, by definition, God possesses all qualities of perfection: He is perfectly strong, perfectly smart, perfectly capable of creating everything, etc.

3. Since perfection is the absolute limit, and since God, being perfect, is the absolute limit of creation, all that God creates must be within His limit.

4. Everything that is created by God must either be perfect, or less perfect than God, but cannot be more perfect than God, since God, being perfect, is the limit to everything, since perfection itself is the limit.

5. A rock, which must be created by God, who by definition is the Creator of everything, cannot be anything more than perfect, which by definition is the limit of perfection. Thus, the idea of a rock, which, being beyond God's ability to lift, and thus beyond perfection, cannot exist, since perfection, and God, who is perfect, is the limit.

Conclusion: Thus, a rock which God cannot lift, by definition, cannot exist.

The error in the argument/question you posed concernes the definition of God. Basically, the question does not properly address the fact that God, by definition, is perfect. Nothing can exist beyond that, by definition, since nothing can exist outside of a realm wherein God exists. That rock would have to be beyond a realm wherein God exists. Basically, the rock would never be in the presence of God, would actually never be present, ever, since it cannot ever exist.

The argument makes a fatal mistake in working away from the assumption that anything can be beyond perfection. By definition, perfection is the state of being in a state of perfection.


God can, btw, create a rock which He, and only He, can lift. That rock would be perfect. It would, actually, be God. God can lift Himself :razz:

But if God has a limit, he can't do everything. Perfection does not have a set or rigid limit.

Perfection is in itself its own limit. Perfection, by being perfection, sets a limit for itself by drawing the line at which something ceases to be. In other words, perfection, by being perfection, sets itself up as the limit.

God, being perfect, is the limit. Since, being perfect, God can do everything, that- the ability to do everything, itself becomes a limit.

In other words, that Being who can do everything creates a limit, after which nothing can be created, since, within that limit, everything is created.

You can't move beyond creating everything, since everything that is created is within God, who, being perfect, is the limit. A 'beyond' cannot exist. Everything is contained within God.

I can spin my own views on perfect too.

Something can be perfect, flawless, but one thing can be more perfect, more flawless, than that thing, or better.

I somewhat raped a format of a George Orwell quote there.

That's the problem with the question you posed. If God can't move that rock, then He is not perfect, and thus, by definition, is not God.

Who is God? The one who can move that rock.

But can that God make a rock he cannot move? Yes? Then He is not God. Who is? The one who can move that rock.

This is, to those who don't know, called circular reasoning in philosophy, and is a fallacy. It would be immediately thrown out. It basically doesn't lead anywhere. That's why the question/argument defeats itself.

Or it defeats the argument of God. Can he do everything, I mean, EVERYTHING? It's claimed so in the Bible. But it's clear this is not possible.

By the way, very clever of you, you almost got me on it, but I never mentioned perfection initially.

If you want to prove that he can't do everything, then you must propose another argument, because the one you did propose is a fallacy. Circular reasoning is absolutely unacceptable.


And Jon, when you mention God, perfection factors in automatically. God must by definition be perfect. It cannot be otherwise.

Goodness who cares what one believes in as far as afterlife as long as one doesn't impose it on others in this world? I could care less if someone thinks I'm going to hell and they're not because we have different concepts of transcendentalism. I don't believe in hell anyways. All I care is that one doesn't pass silly laws making me have to deal with that difference in identity.

Sure, I'll compromise. Just give me until tomorrow morning.

Thank you ... Lord .. thank you!

But, lol... :razz:

It's not about about other people's beliefs, they can believe what they want, I don't really care.


I just dont like thing not making any sense, And I want to understand the reasoning behind some things dealing with religion, because at the moment I see none.

And it's not like religion is not used to hurt others. It's not like religion and the bible weren't used to justify slavery, racism, and discrimination against women for ages. So I'm trying to figure out why religion can be a valid weapon against certain groups, even today, if there is not much reasoning behind it.


Most religous people DO impose their beliefs on others, wehter they realize it or not, in one way or another. and that's why I need to understand they point of view, why they would do that?

rod i hate to say this but mg casey did not impose anything on you. he merely commented on his belief, which was the point of this thread. you ofcourse felt it was your right to come and ask .. no tell mg casey to prove it to you that his faith was better than the rest when he pretty much answered you by saying that its his faith and its not like he is imposing it or asking anyone to believe in itand then you even insult his God for being an asshole and a jerk while during the whole time, casey did nothing more than to try to reply to you in the most politest way possible.

the only one even attacking, or imposing a way of thinking in this thread has been you by continuing to discredit another person's belief to make them think otherwise, something casey did not ask for or anything. like dolcevita herself said .. who cares if his God wishes to be selfish and grant access to only those who believe in him into heaven .. if you don't believe in it, why does it matter to you?? let him believe what he needs to believe ... its his right to as long as he is not only not imposing those views on another person nor is he effecting anyone here with his thinking.

I couldn't care less either, but I do when it comes to clarifying some issues. I feel as if a number of statements were made that were inaccurate. I mean, one might disagree, of course, but at the least know what you're disagreeing with.


Also, just to note: I did not, and will not, state whether I agree with what I posted in this thread or not, because I think that's beside the issue.

And Jon, ok \:D/

I agree. And that's what should change through political governance. Its not going to help to tell people not to believe in God at this point. These institutions have been around way to long, now its just about finding a way to weave them into broader social context.

As you said about slavery, racism, sexism, etc. You know, if they don't pass a law saying I'm not allowed to read or go to school, they can screw their own daughters over. Feel bad for those daughters, hopefully they'll leave their families. If not that, than those daughters will work to reform their institutions from within. They love it enough to stand by it and fight it out, they can. If they get screwed by it, its their fault. Just leave the rest of us out of it. That means no laws about when one should or shoulodn't practice. If someone needs to pray 12 times a day for a few minutes in the corner, laws should be set up to allow that. If someone wants to spend all day sunday praying instead, there should be laws set up for that too. If someone wants to pray all day sunday and thinks its not right to pray 12 times every day, tough tittie. They shouldn't be allowed to tell someone else how they can or can't practive their religion.

For risk of introducing a new element to this, I'll bring up the gay issue. What I think is right: 1) For the Roman Catholic Church to say it doesn't like gays. 2) For guys to say fine, we're going over to the Unitarians (or whatever). 3) For them to say, no, we want to be Roman Catholics, and to keep fighting with the Church to be accepted, even if it takes centuries. What I don't think is right 1) For the church to tell the government that just because they don't like gays, that no institution should like them, and that if a different institution does, that the government not respect that other institutions right to accept them. Tha means basically, not recognizing other religious institutions marriage certificates, or not handing out government sactioned civil union ones. That's what I think is wrong. And that applies to sex, race, socio-economic class, etc, not just sexual preference.