Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Pandeism Exposed...

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 6:40:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"Pandeism holds that God was a conscious and sentient force or entity that designed and created the universe, which operates by mechanisms set forth in the creation. God thus became an unconscious and nonresponsive being by becoming the universe."

-- http://en.wikipedia.org...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 6:44:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 6:40:25 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
"Pandeism holds that God was a conscious and sentient force or entity that designed and created the universe, which operates by mechanisms set forth in the creation. God thus became an unconscious and nonresponsive being by becoming the universe."

-- http://en.wikipedia.org...

I introduce Ignosticism.

"The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless."

In this view, I do not see the Pandeist "God" as a God but as a "supreme force". Any reference to a "God" is simply a way to display an abstract understanding to others.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 6:48:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"While there are no "official" tenets of Deism, many of the following "unofficial" tenets might be the best way to introduce generally accepted beliefs within Deism. The unofficial tenets of Deism are:

1. Belief in God based on Reason, Experience and Nature (nature of the universe) rather than on the basis of pure faith, holy texts and divine revelation. Essentially, through the use of Reason, God's existence is revealed by the observation of the order and complexity found within nature and our personal experiences.

2. Belief that the nature of God is generally incomprehensible and is beyond definition for humanity at this time. Furthermore, human language is limited and inadequate to define God; however, man can use Reason to theorize and speculate on what this possible nature is.

3. Belief that mans relationship with God is impersonal and abstract. However, this does not create a feeling of a distant and cold deity but of one in which God has a profound and unfathomable relationship with all of creation (nature) rather than just one aspect of it.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 6:50:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 6:48:45 PM, M.Torres wrote:
"While there are no "official" tenets of Deism, many of the following "unofficial" tenets might be the best way to introduce generally accepted beliefs within Deism. The unofficial tenets of Deism are:

This is important to note. If Geo attempts to say "This is what Deism says!", he fails to understand that Deism is not an organized religion but rather a loose philosophy. Many Deists disagree on multiple points because Deism can be interpreted in many ways.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 6:52:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think Geo has a point. Deists still believe in a God/gods while atheists believe there's no God/gods so you can't really be both.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 6:54:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 6:44:43 PM, M.Torres wrote:
I introduce Ignosticism.

"The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless."

In this view, I do not see the Pandeist "God" as a God but as a "supreme force".

Ok, but I think "supreme force" is equally meaningless and incoherent as the word "God."

Any reference to a "God" is simply a way to display an abstract understanding to others.

And I think fails to do so. The word "God" doesn't give me any abstract understanding.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 6:55:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 6:52:51 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I think Geo has a point. Deists still believe in a God/gods while atheists believe there's no God/gods so you can't really be both.

The Deist "God" is not a "God". I do not recognize any "God". I recognize a "supreme force" that is NOT under any definition of "God".
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 6:56:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 6:55:06 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 2/27/2011 6:52:51 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I think Geo has a point. Deists still believe in a God/gods while atheists believe there's no God/gods so you can't really be both.

The Deist "God" is not a "God". I do not recognize any "God". I recognize a "supreme force" that is NOT under any definition of "God".

The deist God is still a God that atheists wouldn't recognize so no, you're not an atheist if you believe in a deist God.
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 6:57:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 6:54:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/27/2011 6:44:43 PM, M.Torres wrote:
I introduce Ignosticism.

"The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless."

In this view, I do not see the Pandeist "God" as a God but as a "supreme force".

Ok, but I think "supreme force" is equally meaningless and incoherent as the word "God."

I fail to understand this. The "God" of Deism is equatable to whatever powers and causes created our universe. I call this "a supreme force". This "force" continues to govern us through the laws of reality and the interactions of all physical things.


Any reference to a "God" is simply a way to display an abstract understanding to others.

And I think fails to do so. The word "God" doesn't give me any abstract understanding.

I mean, if "God" is used, it's to translate the idea of a "supreme force" to others.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 6:58:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 6:56:39 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/27/2011 6:55:06 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 2/27/2011 6:52:51 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I think Geo has a point. Deists still believe in a God/gods while atheists believe there's no God/gods so you can't really be both.

The Deist "God" is not a "God". I do not recognize any "God". I recognize a "supreme force" that is NOT under any definition of "God".

The deist God is still a God that atheists wouldn't recognize so no, you're not an atheist if you believe in a deist God.

The "Deist God" is not a God. It is not a deity. So how can it be a "God"?
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 7:01:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 6:58:21 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 2/27/2011 6:56:39 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/27/2011 6:55:06 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 2/27/2011 6:52:51 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I think Geo has a point. Deists still believe in a God/gods while atheists believe there's no God/gods so you can't really be both.

The Deist "God" is not a "God". I do not recognize any "God". I recognize a "supreme force" that is NOT under any definition of "God".

The deist God is still a God that atheists wouldn't recognize so no, you're not an atheist if you believe in a deist God.

The "Deist God" is not a God. It is not a deity. So how can it be a "God"?

I don't think you fully understand what deism is then if you believe that. The deist God is still a God, but a passive God.
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 7:03:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 7:01:02 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/27/2011 6:58:21 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 2/27/2011 6:56:39 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/27/2011 6:55:06 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 2/27/2011 6:52:51 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I think Geo has a point. Deists still believe in a God/gods while atheists believe there's no God/gods so you can't really be both.

The Deist "God" is not a "God". I do not recognize any "God". I recognize a "supreme force" that is NOT under any definition of "God".

The deist God is still a God that atheists wouldn't recognize so no, you're not an atheist if you believe in a deist God.

The "Deist God" is not a God. It is not a deity. So how can it be a "God"?

I don't think you fully understand what deism is then if you believe that. The deist God is still a God, but a passive God.

Pandeism recognizes that the "supreme force" that created reality is now reality itself. So no, it's not a passive God, it's an active force. Remember, I'm a Pandeist.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 7:06:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 6:58:21 PM, M.Torres wrote:
The "Deist God" is not a God. It is not a deity. So how can it be a "God"?

Deists don't believe in a Deity?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 7:09:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 7:06:57 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/27/2011 6:58:21 PM, M.Torres wrote:
The "Deist God" is not a God. It is not a deity. So how can it be a "God"?

Deists don't believe in a Deity?

Some may. Some don't. There's many varying Deists. I am a Pandeist who does not recognize the "Deist God" as a "God" at all.

If you want, I can just retitle Pandeism to something else. Should I call it "Panatheism"? Or "Supreme-Forceism"? It does not change my beliefs: a supreme force created our reality, became our reality, affects our reality but it is not a God or Deity, but rather an abstract sum of all forces working on our reality (including mankind itself).
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 7:51:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 7:49:52 PM, Atheism wrote:
Torres, please explicitly define the 'Supreme Force' you speak of.

I'd say it was this:

The sum of any and all causes of reality; all the forces that control and dictate reality.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
jmar8542
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 8:50:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Here's an easy one to understand

Cantheism:

1. I believe that Cannabis sativa, L. is the useful cane and the true hemp.
I believe that Cannabis Hemp is a restorative natural resource for all humanity to grow, share, and use for our fundamental needs.
Therefore, I shall honor its existance.

2. I believe that the Cannabis plant is endowed with important healing powers, some of which cannot yet be explained.
Therefore I shall offer it to ease the suffering of others.

3. I recognize cannabis as a sacrament within my community. Therefore I shall receive it with thanksgiving and deep respect for its resinous powers.

4. The cultivation and disemination of cannabis are honorable professions. Therefore I shall act with absolute integrity to protect the Cantheist community and its values.

5. I will share my faith, but not be obnoxious about it.
We pray for our oppressors, and work for a better world.
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree, you can fvck off." - Richard Dawkins
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 9:01:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Pandeism honestly seems like a rather reasonable thing to believe in.

One could argue that it takes into account a cyclical universe.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 9:02:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think that C_N will love this concept, as I can see how it would mesh well with Techno Allah.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 9:08:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 9:01:14 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Pandeism honestly seems like a rather reasonable thing to believe in.

Are you serious? "God thus became an unconscious and nonresponsive being by becoming the universe."

God made himself unconscious and became his own creation? lol. I find that humorous rather than plausible.

One could argue that it takes into account a cyclical universe.

How so?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 9:18:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 6:40:25 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
"Pandeism holds that God was a conscious and sentient force or entity that designed and created the universe, which operates by mechanisms set forth in the creation. God thus became an unconscious and nonresponsive being by becoming the universe."

-- http://en.wikipedia.org...

Lolololol.

So -- according to Pandeists -- God created the universe and then became apart of his creation once unconscious? What a load of crap! I'm sorry if you believe in this Geo (since the OP doesn't reflect your thoughts on it and I haven't read any of the other posts :P) but wow... How uncomfortable with the idea of atheism would you have to be, to actually believe in this stuff? It's like someone created the religion simply so they can say how we came to exist without giving any facts or evidence. Since God became one of us, there isn't any need to give justification to his existence since he no longer exists! LOL, this is entertaining at best. But to truly believe in this would take some hardcore delusion.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 9:20:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 7:06:57 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/27/2011 6:58:21 PM, M.Torres wrote:
The "Deist God" is not a God. It is not a deity. So how can it be a "God"?

Deists don't believe in a Deity?

Lol, Geo. Lol.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 9:29:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 9:08:46 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/27/2011 9:01:14 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Pandeism honestly seems like a rather reasonable thing to believe in.

Are you serious? "God thus became an unconscious and nonresponsive being by becoming the universe."

God made himself unconscious and became his own creation? lol. I find that humorous rather than plausible.


One could argue that it takes into account a cyclical universe.

How so?

I'm not saying it is true, I couldn't tell you, but it does seem reasonable.

The universe is constantly evolving and changing.. Once the universe reaches sentience(Which could very well be life or another complex machine being able to take into account all variables), who knows what can be done with that knowledge? eventually these laws could be manipulated.

However, manipulating the laws of the universe in its current state would cause drastic consequences that untangle everything.. Maybe the universe wishes to die and be born again, albeit in a different form? So it starts from a blank slate.. Almost like a game.. Establish new laws that would result in the same outcome.. Universal sentience.

Once the universe becomes aware of itself, its just a matter of ,"Why the fvck not, right?"

It's interesting an interesting thought, just speculation. It's funny, because I've actually contemplated this before.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 9:38:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 9:08:46 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/27/2011 9:01:14 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Pandeism honestly seems like a rather reasonable thing to believe in.

Are you serious? "God thus became an unconscious and nonresponsive being by becoming the universe."

God made himself unconscious and became his own creation? lol. I find that humorous rather than plausible.


One could argue that it takes into account a cyclical universe.

How so?

I don't recognize the original "supreme force" as a being. The "supreme force" caused reality and in doing so was bound to its own laws of existence.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 9:40:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 9:18:30 PM, annhasle wrote:
I'm sorry if you believe in this Geo (since the OP doesn't reflect your thoughts on it and I haven't read any of the other posts :P)

I'm not Pandeist. I'm a Buddhist Athiest.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 9:45:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 9:18:30 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 2/27/2011 6:40:25 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
"Pandeism holds that God was a conscious and sentient force or entity that designed and created the universe, which operates by mechanisms set forth in the creation. God thus became an unconscious and nonresponsive being by becoming the universe."

-- http://en.wikipedia.org...

Lolololol.

So -- according to Pandeists -- God created the universe and then became apart of his creation once unconscious? What a load of crap! I'm sorry if you believe in this Geo (since the OP doesn't reflect your thoughts on it and I haven't read any of the other posts :P) but wow... How uncomfortable with the idea of atheism would you have to be, to actually believe in this stuff? It's like someone created the religion simply so they can say how we came to exist without giving any facts or evidence. Since God became one of us, there isn't any need to give justification to his existence since he no longer exists! LOL, this is entertaining at best. But to truly believe in this would take some hardcore delusion.

I don't understand the critique. Whatever you want to call it, I am just explaining my take on religion.

"A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe."

Thus I am saying that the cause was a "supreme force" that caused reality and its governing laws. Thus it became self-governed and bound to itself.

I say I am Pandeist because Pandeism is closest to this philosophy. I am an Atheist because I reject all Theistic religions and any idea of a conscious, personal being dictating things to whatever whims it feels fit.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 9:47:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 9:38:38 PM, M.Torres wrote:
I don't recognize the original "supreme force" as a being. The "supreme force" caused reality and in doing so was bound to its own laws of existence.

Yeah, but the original "supreme force" was once conscious and then became unconscious. That sounds like a being.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 9:49:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This is destined to be an argument over semantics.

Let's see if the denizens of DDO are capable of reaching a mutual understanding.

Tower of Babel, yo.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 9:50:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This is interesting however.

Deity: "any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force"

I would say that the "supreme force" is exactly as above except it would be a natural force controlling reality. It's not personification, and it should not be worshipped. But I would say that the supreme force is similar:

"Supreme Force" (as described by M.Torres): "the sum of all natural forces controlling reality".
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 9:51:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 9:47:26 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/27/2011 9:38:38 PM, M.Torres wrote:
I don't recognize the original "supreme force" as a being. The "supreme force" caused reality and in doing so was bound to its own laws of existence.

Yeah, but the original "supreme force" was once conscious and then became unconscious. That sounds like a being.

Forces are conscious?
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.