Poll: do you believe in god?

Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.

Page 722 of 722 FirstFirst ... 222622672712720721722
Results 18,026 to 18,033 of 18033
Like Tree210Likes

Thread: Does God exist?

  1. #18026
    Taking a break! dan964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    HSC
    2014
    Uni Grad
    2018
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South of here
    Posts
    2,460
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: Does God exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by SammyT123 View Post
    Please explain to me why faith is a valid substitute for concrete evidence.
    Would either of you accept faith as a substitute whilst writing or reading a scientific report or a medical journal?
    What you do mean by faith? That is the real question. I suspect there is not agreement on the term. So I will not answer.

    Dan, let me ask you. Why is there a very high standard of proof required in mathematics?
    Don't know. Probably very little room for grey matter.

    Might be the case. I see no evidence of the existence of Jesus. Give me something, and I will consider it
    Is Tacitus or Josephus not evidence?
    I think you will find almost all historical scholarship agrees that Jesus existed and died.

    The rest of his claims are contested, depending on whether the person is a Christian or not.
    (Except Muslim scholars who reject Jesus death, and the hardcore atheist blogger, who will deny Jesus existed)
    2014 HSC
    2015 Gap Year
    2016-2018 UOW Bachelor of Maths/Maths Advanced.

    Links:
    View English Notes (no download)
    Maths Notes - Free Sample

    Currently working on an assignment, won't get back to you until tomorrow.

  2. #18027
    Taking a break! dan964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    HSC
    2014
    Uni Grad
    2018
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South of here
    Posts
    2,460
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: Does God exist?

    Sorry, SAMMYT123, I accidentally edited your post instead of mine, so to capture what you have said, what you said is quoted....

    Dan, you have on father. I don't care how you trace lineage. Your father is the man who fertilised your mothers egg. One person. One man. Yet the two statements refer to two different men.
    You have two grandfathers though not one. That is my point, one is not tracing Joseph's lineage.
    Does your mother have the same father as your father? No of course not. And that is the point that you are missing.

    Point in question. Matthew is tracing Joseph's lineage back to Abraham; Luke is tracing the father's through Mary's line (not Joseph) back to Adam (which is why it is much longer as well), and there is a slight "odd-wording" that is suggested.

    I understand you did not directly go to uni.
    But if you said: 1. I went to uni
    and
    2. I did not go to uni

    These are contradictory.
    Similarly


    1. They fled to Egypt
    2. They did not have to flee to Egypt
    Where are you gettting (2) from the text?
    No where in Luke, does it even mention the flight or lack thereof.
    You are reading that idea on the assumption that of difficulty in reconciling timing, when I have gone to the detail in explaining why (2) is false.

    Just because Luke doesn't mention it, doesn't mean that (2) is true. Just because it is difficult to reconcile the timing, doesn't mean that (2) is true.

    There lies the problem. We will have to disagree because this has been going back and forth circularly. Arguments from "omitted" information are weak, and so the claim of contradiction does not stand.

    When I tell someone
    Sam, Steve, Nary flee USA while there was a Tsunami
    They would assume that Sam fled the USA very close to the time there was a tsunami
    Yes but that is you. Have you ever tried summarising 33 years of your life. Events in the Gospels are not necessarily compiled chronologically nor sequenced immediately one after the other, the only clues we have is when exact time periods are given.

    I can say that most people who read that line will also make the assumption that the events happened close to one another, and probably because of each other.
    Maybe that is a problem, as it doesn't understand the author's style of writing and compilation in reporting the events. For instance Mark, often uses immediately, squashing events together.

    Kind of think of it like watching reality TV, obviously there is stuff that happens between the different things that we are shown on the screen, e.g. Masterchef, that is sequential as you would think, but in reality it is compiled in a way to make. That is similar (but not identical) to how the gospels come across.

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    and to answer about Matthew's geanology, why he truncates it, I wouldn't know. even I don't have all the answers
    could be common practice for Jews, or just Matthew making a theological point or bothz
    Well I looked a bit closely myself, and noticed Matthew does not trace the lineage as far back as Luke does, so that would account for the most part a significant difference in generations. (I haven't done the maths to see whether it checks out though yet)

    Goes to show that even I miss things (I think from memory).
    2014 HSC
    2015 Gap Year
    2016-2018 UOW Bachelor of Maths/Maths Advanced.

    Links:
    View English Notes (no download)
    Maths Notes - Free Sample

    Currently working on an assignment, won't get back to you until tomorrow.

  3. #18028
    Taking a break! dan964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    HSC
    2014
    Uni Grad
    2018
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South of here
    Posts
    2,460
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: Does God exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    No, of course not but it causes great doubt to the claim. It is a legal argument of witness, rather than a english argument.
    Please be careful when you say it 'debunks the claim' and then go back on your own statement to say 'of course not'.
    Yeah I know, it causes great doubt to the claim. The key thing is the amount of differences, examine:
    1. No differences - copied
    2. Some differences - ok and in fact good for witness testimony (which is what the Gospel and a lot of 'historical-type' accounts are)
    3. Major difference - contradiction (provided we can prove such difference existed in original text, and also argue that it is not a literary device).
    If they differ significantly, they were indeed not copied.They are contradictory which is even more alarming.
    Witness A: I saw a black man do the murder
    Witness B: I was there too! I saw a white man do the murder
    I don't think on the key matters such as the identity of the murder, that scale of differences I have in view. Would need to look further into specific cases of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    Most of the supposed contradictions can be explained by the fact that they are corroborating accounts. The fact that they differ on the details debunks the claim that they just copied off each account, and show they are independent accounts.
    To refine this, to a degree. How do we determine when a difference is as you would say is contradictory, or simply a textual difficulty in reconciling two completely different texts by two different authors? Context is key and understanding how the writers would have compiled the text is important.


    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    'All' except the righteous that is Noah and his family.

    EXACTLY
    First treatment of sinners: "Kill them all in a flood and save Noah because he was righteous
    Second treatment of sinners: "I will become human, suffer, and sacrifice myself for sinners "

    As explained that is perfectly consistent.

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    (Although just in general, Christians take care with trying to literally interpret events like the flood and all that, most Christians including myself generally are pretty vague on whether the flood was literal or symbolic to be honest, but that is an aside)
    This is concerning. Is there an objective test you use to tell if it is symbolic, or is everything up to subjective interpretation?
    of course not. Generally Christians are more concerned about taking meaning out of a text; rather than forcing it to be literal That means that sometimes we cannot set on a literal or symbolic reading of that text, simply because it is convenient (especially because it fits up with pseudo science or science or our own comfortable standard of living).

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    That is wonderful thing of the cross. Paul talks of how God put forwards Jesus as a "atonement" payment, or a ransom payment (buy-back slave language), and by dying meets the needs of God's justice.
    Funny you should say this. There is a TED talk about a captor who escapes North Korea. Reading transcripts of her interview, she says something along the lines of
    "Kim Jong Un will forgive you for the crimes if you die"
    Dying meets the needs of Gods justice.... This is terrible
    Kim Jong Un and God are two different things. Why is it terrible? Again this is your perspective.

    If God is the source and giver of life, which by definition, if he exists, he has to be; and then you cut yourself off from him somehow, logically, what should result, but death.
    That is fair and reasonable. Also if God says, that if you reject me you die, and we don't listen to the warning, then how can we complain?

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    Not really my subject domain, but that is a philosophical argument at the moment on that.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16906349
    I don't think we can declare animals as either guilty or innocent to be consistent.
    Correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    So if a lions goes out an mauls a child, we kill the bear usually
    Did the pig go out and maul a child?
    Kind of irrelevant my quote is hillarious though out of context, except maybe for vegans. We rear animals and kill them for our food, I personally don't see any reason for outcry there.
    If animals are innocent, then maybe an outcry. But we have no justification to say or argue that they were; so to complain about many pigs dying because God let them, I would be much more concerned about other things, wouldn't you?

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    I am not exactly an avid animal-rights activist at all, nor understand the complexities in your position.
    It is not complex. God ordered the killing of the pigs. If I order the killing of sentient beings for no reason whatsoever, I am cruel.
    Technically God allowed, different to ordered.

    My questions:
    Are pigs sentient beings?
    Why is it cruel to kill animals?
    What if God was demonstrating a point in killing those pigs? (hence a reason)

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    God gave the Jews a list of foods that were considered clean or unclean, to set them apart from other nations. As a result, pigs and those who herded pigs were viewed as unclean in Jewish culture.
    God declared animals X, Y and Z as unclean. He then ordered the killing of the pigs.
    This is not a good justification for the slaughter of sentient beings.
    I am not an animals right activist either. It does not matter. To say animal X is unclean and then let the animal be chased by a demon to its death is disgusting.
    It is because? Why aren't people being sued for killing flies for no apparent reason?



    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    Not quite like that. Christians reject karma, and the book of Job, as well as several parts of the New Testament, makes it clear that in Christianity, that the connection between a specific sin and suffering is tenuous and blurred.
    A newborn did not sin. A baby does not deserve to be born with terrible disorders.
    A baby does not deserve to be aborted by its mother, but yet it happens. It is an injustice.
    A newborn doesn't have to sin, for their to be suffering, as mentioned Christians reject karma; it is a product of a broken world the infant is born into.

    But regarding the innocence of babies, where is the justification?

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    Jesus argues similarly in John 9, that a man's blindness (born blind), was not due to his individual sin nor his parent's sin.
    So why can't this god ensure he is not born blind?
    In that particular case Jesus says " Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him"




    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    In Romans, Paul writes "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men". When Adam sinned and disobeyed God, he was kind of like our representative of humanity, and when he fell, we fell; and so we are all in sense in slavery to sin. (think of ambadassadors to other countries, or Olympic medallists, when they win, our nation wins in a sense).
    Why does a newborn pay for sins commited by some ambassador?
    Simple answer: He doesn't. Each pays for their own sins. But what actually is sin?

    Although you never had to teach a toddler how to do wrong. We presume innocence, only because they haven't done anything. When Paul is talking about sin, in fact the Bible talks about sin, in a greater scope, not as simply whether you have done good or wrong (or so therefore newborns are all clear), even though sometimes it does;
    but in an inherit bias:

    "born this way" kind of idea. Our bias when we are born is to reject God. The only reason newborns look as if would be all clear, is because they haven't done anything.
    That is why it is not so much a specific action, but a status or a condiiton if you like.

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    Now the reality we see and experience is suffering and seemingly unjust suffering too!
    Why doesn't God heal everybody? Does he have to? He certainly has the power to.
    God could yes heal someone's cancer, but surely he can do something much spectacular than that?
    "I can help out my friend next to me who is about to fall off a cliff, but I can do something much more spectacular than that so I wont!"
    Why doesn't god heal Jim's 3 month old son right now? "Because he can do things which are more spectacular, such as heal everyone!"
    Because temporal healing, it would be great for God to heal fully every person's disease, but that doesn't change the inherit bias/condition against God that we have.
    Even one your friend was healed, he would reject the very God who healed him. Unless God fixes that first.


    So why doesn't he hurry the fk up and do it already...
    You know Christians wonder why Jesus hasn't returned yet as well. Sendiment understood, will be addressed a bit later.

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    We have done lots of cancer research, but what God will do will certainly fix the problem totally.
    Why doesn't he do it right now? If you are saying he can fix the problem totally and he certainly has the power too, he must be a massive jerk to have not done it already.
    Why is a massive jerk. Do you realise what it will actually take for sin to be removed and evil to be done away fully from this world, and hence all the things that have flowed.
    It would involve changing us, I don't think you would like that would you? (rhetorical). As I have said previously, for God to fully deal with the problem, he would have to remove all of us, because we are just as much a part of the problem as that supposedly innocent pig, the whole world is as you have said - terrible.


    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    My answer is two-fold:
    1.Suffering highlights to us this world is broken. It speaks of our "human-ness" and our desperate condition. Not every specific suffering can be explained
    Not all suffering can be explained. I agree. Some people suffer for no reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    but in general there is a purpose as to why creation (including disease/natural disaster) isn't fixed by a snap of God's fingers. Maybe it is hard to understand...
    What is this purpose? I thought you just said God has the power to do so.
    He does. But does he have? Why should he? We don't want him. We want him to do all these good things, we boss him around, saying he doesn't exist, unless he acts in a particular way that we want him to. But he doesn't act in that, we complain back to him. And when he does, we still refuse to acknowledge him. If God heals or he doesn't, it won't change the fact that people refuse to believe in him, because inherited all people are hard towards God (even the newborn).

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    Paul argues in Romans, as part of his justice, he gives us over to what we want, but unfortunately what want is not God (we don't seek God).
    Whether we want god or not is influenced heavily by the place we were born and the enviornment we live in.
    You are right in some sense. It is not so much the city we are born reality is all are the same, when born, we don't want God, we like Santa, but we don't want God, we are all hardened towards God. It should be surprising that some are even Christian and saved, it is really that dismal.

    A young child does not want God because the child has not been taught about him. What's your point?
    Doesn't follow sorry. Does not a baby crave its mother's milk even though it has not been taught about it? Does not a newborn crave things that it has no understanding of?

    A person's desire for something cannot depend on whether they have been taught or not.

    The child may be born with a terrible disease. Are you trying to say this is because the child reject god?
    No, there is no answer on that one sorry. It is because humanity rejected God, and that child is part of humanity. So while it is not directly because of their own rejection, it is because of the overall rejection.

    To use a limited example: the Hutt river province declared its sovereignity from Australia, as a result the WA government withdrew all its council services. People who are born there for instance have very little choice over whether they receive such services because of the actions of others...


    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    But Pharaoh rejects God. God then in judgement (like a judge), sends disasters, but Pharaoh keeps refusing.
    The Pharoah deliberately refuses. A newborn does not
    Where is the basis for the second statement? in that example of Pharaoh, despite God restoring healing and all that, he refused God.
    and while you may think a newborn cannot refuse God, the inherit bias is already there.


    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    But what gets me, is God would send plague/disaster, Pharaoh would realise that and promise to let God's people go, and ask God to end the plague, he would but then Pharoah would go back and pretend that God didn't exist again.
    Suffering should be a wake up call that something is broken and needs fixing, kind of like a warning sign.
    If Pharoah had enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists, he is ignorant
    I, and many other people, do not have such evidence.
    Depends on what you count and measure as evidence. If you are looking for only scientifiic/mathematical arguments then you may be right to make your conclusions. But surely we can consider more things as evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    I don't have a full answer for case by case of course, because suffering is real and personal for everyone, and I could give all these nice tight philosophical answers about why, it doesn't change anything of the reality.
    Agreed

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    Jesus in Mark 2:1-14, demonstrates however there is much more bigger problem. God could keep on healing cancer, in fact Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, but then he died again;
    God has to deal with the root-cause of suffering and evil not just the outward cases of it. And that is where for Christians, Jesus steps into the picture...
    Clearly god has not dealt with this root-cause of suffering very well...
    Well he has, think of it as a long work in progress. He is putting off doing the final cleanup, so that people can be saved. That is a big reason.

    Also
    At any given point of time, God can improve some single individual or beings life significantly. But he does not. Why?
    He sometimes does, we just genuinely assume it is something else. maybe he wants to demonstrate that you cannot find life outside of him, you cannot find good things.


    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    Do you think the Nuremberg trials were just in their condemnation of SS soldiers and that?
    You see the measure God uses to judge, is very different to ours. We look at people like Mother Teresa or the Dalai Lama and say they are good people; and look at Hitler or Pol Pott and say they are bad. But God doesn't have such a standard, and such a standard to him is double standard.
    Sure. He may have different standards and methods of judging good or bad. Still a terrible person for doing a "massive clean up job" of anyone who does not trust in him.
    Yeah his standards are much tighter than ours. We often think that for instance speeding is ok, but murder is not. God is fairly consistent.
    He seems terrible to us, because we don't want to be cleaned up. We want a God who will accept us as we are, not bother us, and while you are at it, why don't you bless and improve my life? Yet all the more, we don't acknowledge him as God, we don't want him as God, and most of all we don't let him speak for himself.

    Why? Does not a king have a right to execute those who commit treason? That is how serious God sees it. It seems terrible, but that is only because of how terrible it is.
    Imagine if you said seriously to your father who gave you birth, "I wish you had never been born", that is serious. Imagine if you said that to Queen of England for instance.
    Let alone to the one who is responsible for the fabrics and order of the universe.

    God: I will not give Steve enough evidence of my existance to convince him. However easy it may be.
    Also god: Fuck you steve, you did not beleive in me. I will clean you up (I.e Kill you)
    Again where are you looking for your evidence. If you are looking only in science (or for that matter pseudo-science), then you won't get very far.

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    Let me us an illustration, imagine your parents paid for your entire university course, e.g. you receive like $100 payments every week, got in the degree, that made them happy, you got in a high-paying job, the top of the world, and had a 'model' family etc. But there is only one problem, you never talk to your parents; and most of all you continue to take that payment.
    In the same way, how all of humanity, old and small, treat God. It is a terrible thing.
    And we think God is being unreasonable in cutting off the supply of good things from his end (thankfully he still gives rain and that), because we don't want him anyway?
    We want God to heal us, fix us but when he has done that, we still reject God.
    Is God unjust?
    So this all knowing ever powerfull kind god requires us to praise him and do service to him, and becasue we don't (no good evidence exists for his existance), he will cut off the goods
    My parents on the otherhand, will not cut off the payments even If I do not talk to them. This is because they love me and want the best for me, even If I do not want the best for them.
    God wants us and we should, of obligation, kind of like how we should submit to our leaders and our parents, and obey them.

    And God does want the best for him, but at the same time, God is a God of justice. Even your parent's discipline you for your own good.


    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    In the God's great courtroom, the verdict is we are guilty
    What am I guilty of? What is the newborn guilty of?
    A just (and sensible) court punishes those who are guilty
    Yes and we say to God, I want everything you have but not you; and that comes out in everything we do.
    We basically commit treason against God in our attitude towards him.
    We want to live our own lives as king without God.


    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    this is a much bigger problem that needs fixing, we fall short of God's standard. And death and by a loose extension, suffering is supposed to point us to this bigger problem.
    Just like some people fall short of a violent dictators standard.
    Maybe we are guilty of calling God violent, simply because we don't like the fact that he says things that make us feel uncomfortable and have to change; and we want to live our own lives? We don't want his input. We don't like his laws. We call him unjust because he doesn't let us off the hook; and so on.

    God allows it for a time, and allows suffering to remind us of this reality. But he will come.


    Death is what usually happens next

    What the heck is this bigger problem? Death is the only way to point us to it????

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    Jesus then comes and takes on our sin and satisfies the justice of God:
    That is why Jesus had to suffer, that is how he helps us.
    There is a very good reason Person A can't just "take on" crimes commited by person B and be punished instead...
    What is that reason?

    God: I will take on your sins by letting my son suffer
    Also god: Damn sinners! I will "clean you all up" in a massive flood. Except you Noah, You are righteous. Sinners die!
    Before Jesus came, God' justice was not satifisfied. In the same way, God would do the same again. He could do it today or tommorrow. Why doesn't here, just wipe us all out now? (slightly rhetorical).


    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    The resurrection of Jesus of course. Because the Christian faith stands or falls on that one.
    [/QUOTE]
    Sure. What are your best pieces of evidence for this ever occuring?

    I agree for the most part with this, rather than type out things
    http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/...-from-the-dead

    But there are more arguments for God's existence, the common ones along with their common objections are littered through their thread such as the
    - first cause argument

    If the universe had a beginning that resulting in all the other processes of the universe happening.
    Then it is logically that the universe's beginning is consistent with the effects of its beginning, and
    That first cause needs some concrete explanation/understanding.

    - ontological argument
    - if there is existence, then God exists (it is a bit more complicated than that, but the argument goes...
    if God doesn't exist then we have to account for the universe's existence.
    2014 HSC
    2015 Gap Year
    2016-2018 UOW Bachelor of Maths/Maths Advanced.

    Links:
    View English Notes (no download)
    Maths Notes - Free Sample

    Currently working on an assignment, won't get back to you until tomorrow.

  4. #18029
    Taking a break! dan964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    HSC
    2014
    Uni Grad
    2018
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South of here
    Posts
    2,460
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: Does God exist?

    my quoting is very dodgy though, lol
    sometimes I haven't quoted you lol
    Last edited by dan964; 8 Sep 2017 at 1:43 AM.
    2014 HSC
    2015 Gap Year
    2016-2018 UOW Bachelor of Maths/Maths Advanced.

    Links:
    View English Notes (no download)
    Maths Notes - Free Sample

    Currently working on an assignment, won't get back to you until tomorrow.

  5. #18030
    Exalted Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    HSC
    N/A
    Gender
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,105
    Rep Power
    6

    Re: Does God exist?

    Assuming for a moment this fictional sky daddy exists, why would it demand acknowledgement and subservience? It seemingly suffers from the mortal "sin" of pride which it supposedly decries.

  6. #18031
    Taking a break! dan964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    HSC
    2014
    Uni Grad
    2018
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South of here
    Posts
    2,460
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: Does God exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by braintic View Post
    Assuming for a moment this fictional sky daddy exists, why would it demand acknowledgement and subservience? It seemingly suffers from the mortal "sin" of pride which it supposedly decries.
    That question is very loaded.
    That is all I will say. Several things need to be address:
    1. God is not a "sky daddy", and certainly isn't floating on clouds.
    2. God is not an "it" like an animal is.
    3. Is God demanding it or is he entitled? (If the second is any better). - In the same way that honour is due to a king/queen, same goes for God, especially if he is the giver of life logically.
    4. Is humanity simply created to be God's slave? - Certainly not in the way your question implies (food for thought even for me though)
    5. God is the one who defines sin - Sin is rejection of God. (Unless your view of God = demiurge)
    6. Pride - again is defined as thinking of oneself more highly than one ought.
    Impossible for the highest possible being to think of themselves as more than they are.

    But your assumption is already given. Really I don't need to answer your question. You have made your conclusion before beginning.
    (My answer, if you conclude like you have that God doesn't exist, why would it matter to you whether you acknowledge him or not, you haven't to begin with)
    Last edited by dan964; 9 Sep 2017 at 1:15 AM.
    2014 HSC
    2015 Gap Year
    2016-2018 UOW Bachelor of Maths/Maths Advanced.

    Links:
    View English Notes (no download)
    Maths Notes - Free Sample

    Currently working on an assignment, won't get back to you until tomorrow.

  7. #18032
    -insert title here- Paradoxica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    HSC
    2016
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Outside reality
    Posts
    2,373
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: Does God exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    2. God is not an "it" like an animal is.
    Then what is god? Nothing is above existence. anything that can exist can be referred to as "it" if the properties of "it" are unknown. This also applies to metaphysical concepts.
    If I am a conic section, then my e = ∞

    Just so we don't have this discussion in the future, my definition of the natural numbers includes 0.

  8. #18033
    Taking a break! dan964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    HSC
    2014
    Uni Grad
    2018
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South of here
    Posts
    2,460
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: Does God exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paradoxica View Post
    Then what is god? Nothing is above existence. anything that can exist can be referred to as "it" if the properties of "it" are unknown. This also applies to metaphysical concepts.
    even God has a preferred pronoun, hehe.
    2014 HSC
    2015 Gap Year
    2016-2018 UOW Bachelor of Maths/Maths Advanced.

    Links:
    View English Notes (no download)
    Maths Notes - Free Sample

    Currently working on an assignment, won't get back to you until tomorrow.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •