This is just speculation and has nothing to do with my side of the debate, but... this thread is becoming more and more about human nature... if for no other reason i'll stick around to see how this plays out.

im heading to bed though. wont be back till 9 or so PST. 'Night.

Less of his strength to do what? To lift the stone? Or to create it? Either way, I still don't understand your point, because what you are saying is irrelevant. Can he lift or can't he lift? Can he make or can't he make? Come on, let's hear a straight answer.


It's not love to YOU. This is YOUR subjective opinion. If you have some proof to show that romantic love can only be for one person, then let's see it.


And all that can also be for two or three people. All that you described can easily be said about my feelings for my mother. If you can come up with one point which differentiates romantic love from familial love, aside from the desire to have sex, I'd like to hear it.

Romantic love by deffinition a special love. It's one that you can only TRULY feel for one person. sure, you can get plenty of knockoffs of it, but true love is only between two people. And you asked for my deffinition. I gave it to you. and i know nothing than what i've found through personal experience. If you feel differently as does your partner, fine. but i believe true love can only be felt between two people.

And do you not understand the concept of affection? the concept of feeling a special place in your heart for one person? trust me, i have no sexual desires, and i wont until marraige. It's a different feeling. if you've ever felt familial love, it's the feeling of closeness, of seeing yourself in a mirror, and resemblance, and unity; Romantic love is the love of an individual. it's full of discovery, and the joy of learning about the person; it's love of differences. it's indefinable yet also simple at the same time; Both make you want to protect those involved, but Romantic Love is far different from Familial Love.

And honestly, i cant make the description any more simple. you're the one who requested the examples. God can make a stone which he cant lift by using less of his strength, just as you can not lift a relatively light stone by exerting a slight amount of force. I cant make it any more simple.

Okay then I'll say just as simply the true love can exist between one person and two or more other people.


You've said that familial love is the love caused by similarities, and romantic love is the one caused by differences. Why does that have to be? I could just as likely fall in love with a girl who also likes Iron Maiden, supports Liverpool FC, etc, because we are so similar, and seemingly "made for each other".

And I could just as easily love a cousin who I talk with and holds different opinions from mine, we could sit and have long talks. If he/she likes comedy movies where I might like action, we could show each other what we like, that is "discovery" too. The reasons you give aren't solid, because they could apply for either "kind" of love as I've shown.

'

So there is something he cannot do, as you've said yourself, whether he makes it using "less strength" or "more strength", he is making a stone so heavy he cannot lift.

im saying he's trying less hard to lift it. and as for Love, yes, it can be caused by similarities too. But the point still stands that it's about discovery. And it's how you view the relationship coming into it, too. If you see them as your cousin, you'll probably feel that way about them; a familial or friendly love.

And perhaps for other people it could work with multiple partners. But you also have to take account morals, and the fact that we learn off of personal experience. For some, it's impossible to love anyone other than their partner, nor would they want to. True love is a spiritual connection between too people; fate, sort of, if you believe in that.

And i dont see how your first paragraph had any relavance whatsoever... care to elaborate?

Are you saying he can't lift it because he's trying less hard to lift it? If so, why is he trying less hard to lift it?


When the multiple marriage is consented to by all those involved and affected, there is nothing wrong with. A man/woman can sincerely and wholeheartedly, romantically love more than one other person. True love doesn't only have to be between two people. Just because you say it doesn't make it true.

My first para was in reference to your simple statement without any evidence or proof that true love cannot exist between more than two people. You were just stating it, so I decided to just state my own opinion too.

*shrugs* This is really a topic that involves morals. so we are, of course, going to get different opinions. i think that when you get married, or are in a romantic relationship, it should be a complete dedication of your heart to that one person... one special person who is like no other for you. but if you choose to believe differently, i dont really care.

and we're talking possibility on the stone thing. he can possibly NOT lift it if he tries less hard to lift it.

That implies a choice not to lift the proverbial stone, not an inability. The reason it's hard to wrap your head around the example is that it is a paradox. Our minds just don't handle those very well. It boils down to that the very idea of ultimate omnipotence is inherently contradictory to itself.

but it HAS Been shown in the past that he can cut his power down by making himself human (i.e. Christ on the Cross).

And the truely paradoxical nature of it is what makes it useless. An infinitely powerful Deity can lift anything, and lifts things regardless of weight. therefore the weight of the stone wouldnt even be a factor.

Which is the point exactly. An omnipotent figure, by definition, is all-powerful. It can do anything. Except, apparently, make a stone large enough that it can't lift it. Ipso facto, it isn't omnipotent.

Ah, but what about when physical form has nothing to do with it? What about when weight and mass arent even factors in the slightest?

The example can be used when they aren't a factor, such as, can an omnipotent being create an equation even it cannot solve? The paradox remains.

Or can a universe be created from nothing.

^ For an omnipotent being, that shouldn't be a problem, although, as shown here, omnipotence is impossible.

i think you just proved his point Vasu. without an omnipotent being, the universe couldnt have been created.

Well then in that case creation of a universe would be impossible as well.

That would be the Creationist view. The Big Bang appears to have resulted from a singularity. Admittedly, there is still much, much to be discovered about singularities in general and the Big Bang singularity in specific, but no one truly contends that everything came from nothing.

It's even hard to think about what might have caused the singularity, seeing as time and causality, by definition, couldn't have existed pre-Big Bang, at least as it relates to our universe. I have a sneaking suspicion that we're the result of another universe switching on their own Large Hadron Collider. The quantum foam idea is elegant, but still hard to grasp conceptually, much less actually test for it at this point.

No matter how far you go back, it had to start with something, Hrae. Explain pl0x?

Well, here's another fundamental difference beween our positions. I don't know. I'm willing to admit I don't know. I think it's possible we'll eventually discover it, but doubtfully in our lifetimes.

Ascribing it to a supernatural power and then speaking for said supernatural power is rank arrogance.

i dont speak for God o.o

you asked my beliefs, i told you... that's it.

But you do admit that at this point there is no evidence that disproves the existence of a deity, or proves the existance of any other possible means of a beginning?

I will admit that there is no evidence that disproves the existence of magical underpants gnomes and that the God of the Gaps argument is a very, very slippery slope that I don't think you want to go down.

im simply asking, how is your theory that nothingness just magically exploded any more plausible than that of divine extra dimensional being watching over us?

Olber's Paradox, redshift, discovery of cosmic background radiation, and more observational evidence point to a finite universe that is currently expanding and at one time was in a dense, isothermal state.

Emperical, observational, repeatable evidence that points to the Big Bang model of cosmology. This makes it infinitely more plausible than an invisible, unobservable, diety that plays an active role in the universe.

You'll note that I've never contended that there isn't ANY possibility that some extra-universal agent exists, merely that there isn't a shred of hard evidence for it.

Ah, but do you have any evidence to what may or may not have caused the big bang? that is where my point lies. I Believe in the Big Bang and in Evolution, but i believe God caused them, that God was the one molding everything.

Here's an article that i found on Google that seems to be someone lecturing on Hawking's theories on God.

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9501/bigbang2.html

I believe Hrae is an agnostic, therefore he claims ignorance on the issue due to lack of sufficient knowledge, rather than come up with an incomplete, flawed theory. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

Me, I share his view.


EDIT: But Jik, this is once again a proof-less assumption you are making by ascribing the Big Bang and Evolution to God, when there is no evidence either way.

I'll say it again, when there is no proof either way, the difference is that I seek knowledge, while you jump at god.

But what if both theories can coexist to make one beautiful one? isnt it at all possible that whatever Divine Being created us used the laws of physics, biology, everything to make us? Isnt it possible to believe that God created the Big Bang, and did it in such a perfect way that everything that came afterwards would be in just the right place? that earth would be exactly the correct distance from the sun, and so on and so forth?

I am an agnostic atheist. I am agnostic because I don't know, because there is no evidence. I'm an atheist because I do not believe in any form of theism.

There are agnostic theists (deists and the like) and gnostic theists (any group that claims to know the motives/desires of a deity).

I'm agnostic about dinner, because I don't know what I'm making, but I'll soon have evidence enough on that question.

Edit:
That would be lovely. Wouldn't it also be great if you had a tree that grew money? It's also be great if alien civilizations exist. However, at present, there is no evidence that any of the three situations exist.

A lot of those theories are just that. Theories (Quantum Physics/Mechanics are mainly just theories too). Just like Gods and Goddesses are theories as well. Neither one can disprove the other, and the only thing that keeps religion going is the holes in which science has not (and probably will not) fill.

Again with my initial argument, something must have laid out the initial isothermal state. Nothing does not randomly blink into something. Then again, the creator could not have come from nowhere. Nothing doesn't blink into a sentient, all-powerful creator.

Sadly the argument of origin can carry on for a really long time and neither side will get really far XD

Once again, possible, improbable, no evidence either way.

*shrugs* would it not be the least bit more probable than everything just landing in the right way by chance?

Forgot to quote this one too.

This belief is called Deism. The one "god" put everything in motion, natural principles, physics, evolution, etc. to end up creating something beautiful. Much like a clockmaker throws a bunch of parts together and it eventually forms a working clock.

No, it wouldn't.

That's a false equivalence. You can observe the phenomena that I briefly touched on for yourself, crunch the numbers, see the results. Data, evidence, observations...these will always trump claims about Gods and Goddesses without the same amount of presentable, testable evidence.

Then you get into the God of the Gaps argument, which, as I've said, probably isn't something you want to actually make. It's a really damning sort of position to take, seeing that as the gaps are filled, it leaves less and less space for the "god".

Would it help if there was no right or wrong way? Things just happened the way they did?

But is the Big Bang not just a theory? Things are left as theories until proved through experiments...I think.

Indeed though, Science fills tons of those gaps. But true origin is still left unexplained and probably can't be explained.

The problem i have with Deism is that, from what i've heard (correct me if im wrong) whatever Deity created us just moved on and hasnt interfered since. I find that kinda hard to believe since every artist views his work and make it better, and that's kind of what God is; a divine artist of sorts.

So everything just happened to end up the way it is by chance? the sun just happened to be the right distance from the earth? H2O just happened to form on our planet, while on most other planets we've discovered have none in its liquid form? i find that very hard to believe.

Correct. I've not found the appropriate term for that religion yet though. It is entirely possible since a clockmaker occasionally has to make repairs, or may make improvements to help the clock's efficiency.

*shrugs* Catholicism makes enough sense to me, in terms of pure religious doctrine; some of the social teachings i don't agree with, but in terms of teachings on all divine beings, it makes sense to me.

This made me LOL and people looked at me :zomg:

The probability of the big bang happening and ending up with me typing is unable to be calculated. But that withstanding we are here.

I've been to church for a few months or so off/on and even went to a few bible study classes.

They still confuse me. They say Jesus is the Son of God, but then they refer to him as God himself. As in, the holy spirit being both of them. Maybe the people teaching me are not good at teaching but they made it seem as if Jesus and God are essentially the same being, but Jesus is still somehow separate.