Total Posts:256|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Zero Plus Zero Equals One

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2013 7:20:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
conundrum:

1. A difficult question or riddle, especially one using a play on words in the answer.

2. A difficult choice or decision that must be made. - http://en.wiktionary.org...

The problem I see in answering the question, "Is God, or the Universe, eternal?", is a question of time. Can that which is temporal have its origin in that which is atemporal, meaning without time? This in itself seems to break the law of noncontradiction.

Secondly, if not, and God, or the Universe, does, indeed, have a beginning, from where did God, or the Universe, come? If from nothing, then, again the law of noncontradiction is broken; for, you can't get something from nothing.
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2013 7:45:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The law of Identity was already f*cked up beyond all repair.

Some more laws would get us all the much closer to chaos.
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2013 8:26:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/5/2013 7:20:54 AM, s-anthony wrote:
conundrum:

1. A difficult question or riddle, especially one using a play on words in the answer.

2. A difficult choice or decision that must be made. - http://en.wiktionary.org...

The problem I see in answering the question, "Is God, or the Universe, eternal?", is a question of time. Can that which is temporal have its origin in that which is atemporal, meaning without time? This in itself seems to break the law of noncontradiction.

Secondly, if not, and God, or the Universe, does, indeed, have a beginning, from where did God, or the Universe, come? If from nothing, then, again the law of noncontradiction is broken; for, you can't get something from nothing.

I have been giving this a lot of thought recently.I believe one of the problems is that we cannot truly understand the concept of infinity. This then gets used as a way to get around the God question, but like you say zero plus zero equals one.

But the one thing,I have to ask why do you say you cannot get something from nothing. This again is one of those words that makes no sense and we dont understand truly. What is nothing?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2013 10:36:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/5/2013 7:20:54 AM, s-anthony wrote:
conundrum:

1. A difficult question or riddle, especially one using a play on words in the answer.

2. A difficult choice or decision that must be made. - http://en.wiktionary.org...

The problem I see in answering the question, "Is God, or the Universe, eternal?", is a question of time. Can that which is temporal have its origin in that which is atemporal, meaning without time? This in itself seems to break the law of noncontradiction.

Secondly, if not, and God, or the Universe, does, indeed, have a beginning, from where did God, or the Universe, come? If from nothing, then, again the law of noncontradiction is broken; for, you can't get something from nothing.

God existed before time did, in fact time only came into being with the first of his creations.

Since time is simply a measurement of change, when there is nothing to change there is nothing to measure, therefore no time exists.

The universe is eternal in the sense that it will exist for as long as God wants it to, therefore, since God has no reason to ever destroy it, it will never end.

Man was created to be eternal, in the same sense, however Adam made it necessary for God to remove his ability to live forever, and simply gave him sufficient time to start the human race. Since that time all die, until the issue that Satan raised is finally proven to be false in all states and all conditions, if not in the case of all people.

Once that is finalised mankind will once again have the chance of living forever.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2013 10:46:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/5/2013 8:26:01 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/5/2013 7:20:54 AM, s-anthony wrote:
conundrum:

1. A difficult question or riddle, especially one using a play on words in the answer.

2. A difficult choice or decision that must be made. - http://en.wiktionary.org...

The problem I see in answering the question, "Is God, or the Universe, eternal?", is a question of time. Can that which is temporal have its origin in that which is atemporal, meaning without time? This in itself seems to break the law of noncontradiction.

Secondly, if not, and God, or the Universe, does, indeed, have a beginning, from where did God, or the Universe, come? If from nothing, then, again the law of noncontradiction is broken; for, you can't get something from nothing.

I have been giving this a lot of thought recently.I believe one of the problems is that we cannot truly understand the concept of infinity. This then gets used as a way to get around the God question, but like you say zero plus zero equals one.

But the one thing,I have to ask why do you say you cannot get something from nothing. This again is one of those words that makes no sense and we dont understand truly. What is nothing?

This universe could not have been created from nothing therefore God must have created from God's own substance.

Since God is energy, that would appear to add some credence to Energy= Mass times the square of the speed of light.

That is why when you split the atom you can release massive amounts of energy from such a tiny particle, hence the Atom Bomb.

It all fits if you think about it.

As for nothing, the simplest answer is that nothing is what about 80% of everything consists of. It is the space that electrons move in for instance.

If you looked through a powerful enough microscope you would soon find that there is no such thing as a true solid.

For instance, some scientists believe that if you could compress every human being to the extent that there was no empty space available at any level, the whole of the human race would fit in a matchbox, but of course it would become a very heavy matchbox because the total weight of humanity would not be decreased at all.

Again if you think about it that is obvious or there would be no way electrons could move, and therefore electricity would not work.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2013 11:39:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/5/2013 7:20:54 AM, s-anthony wrote:

Can that which is temporal have its origin in that which is atemporal, meaning without time?

Only if the thing that originates it is a free agent.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2013 2:26:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/5/2013 11:39:15 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 12/5/2013 7:20:54 AM, s-anthony wrote:

Can that which is temporal have its origin in that which is atemporal, meaning without time?

Only if the thing that originates it is a free agent.

That's not necessary. You have been reading too much William Lane Craig....
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2013 2:28:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, even though 0+0=0. You can still get energy from no energy as long as you have enough "negative" energy to back it up. For example:

0 = -1,000 + 1000

Scientists now believe that the total energy of the universe is 0. This is because all the negative energy balances out the positive.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2013 2:30:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/5/2013 7:20:54 AM, s-anthony wrote:
conundrum:

1. A difficult question or riddle, especially one using a play on words in the answer.

2. A difficult choice or decision that must be made. - http://en.wiktionary.org...

The problem I see in answering the question, "Is God, or the Universe, eternal?", is a question of time. Can that which is temporal have its origin in that which is atemporal, meaning without time? This in itself seems to break the law of noncontradiction.

How does it break the law of contradiction? For that law to be broken, two contradictory things have to be true at the same time, or the same state of affairs. What two contradictory things are true at the same state of affairs, or same time?


Secondly, if not, and God, or the Universe, does, indeed, have a beginning, from where did God, or the Universe, come? If from nothing, then, again the law of noncontradiction is broken; for, you can't get something from nothing.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2013 2:35:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/5/2013 2:26:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/5/2013 11:39:15 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 12/5/2013 7:20:54 AM, s-anthony wrote:

Can that which is temporal have its origin in that which is atemporal, meaning without time?

Only if the thing that originates it is a free agent.

That's not necessary. You have been reading too much William Lane Craig....

How else do you suppose an infinite thing could produce a finite effect? Out of infinity another thing of infinite nature is always produced, that is the nature of cause-and-effect.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2013 2:41:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/5/2013 2:35:05 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 12/5/2013 2:26:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/5/2013 11:39:15 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 12/5/2013 7:20:54 AM, s-anthony wrote:

Can that which is temporal have its origin in that which is atemporal, meaning without time?

Only if the thing that originates it is a free agent.

That's not necessary. You have been reading too much William Lane Craig....

How else do you suppose an infinite thing could produce a finite effect?

Easily. The finite temporal effect occurs without a sufficient condition for it to happen (it happens spontaneously), but it still is dependent on a timeless necessary condition (so it doesn't come from nothing). Dr. Craig's dilemma presupposes that an effect must have both:

(i) A sufficient cause

and

(ii) A necessary cause

There is no reason to think everything must have a sufficient cause, because a necessary cause is enough to avoid ex nihilo nihil fit. Also, spontaneous things happen all the time without a sufficient cause (virtual particle fluctuations, radio-active decay ect..).

Out of infinity another thing of infinite nature is always produced, that is the nature of cause-and-effect.

Only if you assume a sufficient cause is required; its not. A necessary condition is all that is needed to avoid ex nihilo nihil fit.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2013 5:04:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/5/2013 10:46:37 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/5/2013 8:26:01 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/5/2013 7:20:54 AM, s-anthony wrote:
conundrum:

1. A difficult question or riddle, especially one using a play on words in the answer.

2. A difficult choice or decision that must be made. - http://en.wiktionary.org...

The problem I see in answering the question, "Is God, or the Universe, eternal?", is a question of time. Can that which is temporal have its origin in that which is atemporal, meaning without time? This in itself seems to break the law of noncontradiction.

Secondly, if not, and God, or the Universe, does, indeed, have a beginning, from where did God, or the Universe, come? If from nothing, then, again the law of noncontradiction is broken; for, you can't get something from nothing.

I have been giving this a lot of thought recently.I believe one of the problems is that we cannot truly understand the concept of infinity. This then gets used as a way to get around the God question, but like you say zero plus zero equals one.

But the one thing,I have to ask why do you say you cannot get something from nothing. This again is one of those words that makes no sense and we dont understand truly. What is nothing?

This universe could not have been created from nothing therefore God must have created from God's own substance.

Since God is energy, that would appear to add some credence to Energy= Mass times the square of the speed of light.

That is why when you split the atom you can release massive amounts of energy from such a tiny particle, hence the Atom Bomb.

It all fits if you think about it.

As for nothing, the simplest answer is that nothing is what about 80% of everything consists of. It is the space that electrons move in for instance.

If you looked through a powerful enough microscope you would soon find that there is no such thing as a true solid.

For instance, some scientists believe that if you could compress every human being to the extent that there was no empty space available at any level, the whole of the human race would fit in a matchbox, but of course it would become a very heavy matchbox because the total weight of humanity would not be decreased at all.

Again if you think about it that is obvious or there would be no way electrons could move, and therefore electricity would not work.

Nothing in sense of the space that an electron moves in,is what science says nothing is. This is not what the layman thinks of nothing. However,this is important if you accept this as nothing.

If this is nothing,then in this nothing,the Casmir effect can take place.This is the creation of something from nothing. That disproves your God hypothesis, as you say God had to have created the universe or something cannot come from nothing..
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 6:51:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/5/2013 8:26:01 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/5/2013 7:20:54 AM, s-anthony wrote:
conundrum:

1. A difficult question or riddle, especially one using a play on words in the answer.

2. A difficult choice or decision that must be made. - http://en.wiktionary.org...

The problem I see in answering the question, "Is God, or the Universe, eternal?", is a question of time. Can that which is temporal have its origin in that which is atemporal, meaning without time? This in itself seems to break the law of noncontradiction.

Secondly, if not, and God, or the Universe, does, indeed, have a beginning, from where did God, or the Universe, come? If from nothing, then, again the law of noncontradiction is broken; for, you can't get something from nothing.

I have been giving this a lot of thought recently.I believe one of the problems is that we cannot truly understand the concept of infinity. This then gets used as a way to get around the God question, but like you say zero plus zero equals one.

But the one thing,I have to ask why do you say you cannot get something from nothing. This again is one of those words that makes no sense and we dont understand truly. What is nothing?

Nothing is nothing, not a thing. When it is we talk about nothing, there is nothing about which to talk. The only meaning we can give to nothing is nothing.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 7:20:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/5/2013 10:36:32 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/5/2013 7:20:54 AM, s-anthony wrote:
conundrum:

1. A difficult question or riddle, especially one using a play on words in the answer.

2. A difficult choice or decision that must be made. - http://en.wiktionary.org...

The problem I see in answering the question, "Is God, or the Universe, eternal?", is a question of time. Can that which is temporal have its origin in that which is atemporal, meaning without time? This in itself seems to break the law of noncontradiction.

Secondly, if not, and God, or the Universe, does, indeed, have a beginning, from where did God, or the Universe, come? If from nothing, then, again the law of noncontradiction is broken; for, you can't get something from nothing.

God existed before time did, in fact time only came into being with the first of his creations.

Again, speaking of that which is timeless, with tensed modifiers.


Since time is simply a measurement of change, when there is nothing to change there is nothing to measure, therefore no time exists.

The universe is eternal in the sense that it will exist for as long as God wants it to, therefore, since God has no reason to ever destroy it, it will never end.

Again, speaking of that which is timeless, with tensed modifiers.


Man was created to be eternal, in the same sense, however Adam made it necessary for God to remove his ability to live forever, and simply gave him sufficient time to start the human race. Since that time all die, until the issue that Satan raised is finally proven to be false in all states and all conditions, if not in the case of all people.

Humans were created eternal yet were not? If God created humans to be eternal (which in itself makes no sense), humans would be eternal.


Once that is finalised mankind will once again have the chance of living forever.

If there's any break in the eternity of human beings, then, they were never eternal, from the beginning. Eternity is beyond temporal limits; in other words, it doesn't begin in time and neither does it end in time; it's beyond time.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 8:02:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/5/2013 5:04:30 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/5/2013 10:46:37 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/5/2013 8:26:01 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/5/2013 7:20:54 AM, s-anthony wrote:
conundrum:

1. A difficult question or riddle, especially one using a play on words in the answer.

2. A difficult choice or decision that must be made. - http://en.wiktionary.org...

The problem I see in answering the question, "Is God, or the Universe, eternal?", is a question of time. Can that which is temporal have its origin in that which is atemporal, meaning without time? This in itself seems to break the law of noncontradiction.

Secondly, if not, and God, or the Universe, does, indeed, have a beginning, from where did God, or the Universe, come? If from nothing, then, again the law of noncontradiction is broken; for, you can't get something from nothing.

I have been giving this a lot of thought recently.I believe one of the problems is that we cannot truly understand the concept of infinity. This then gets used as a way to get around the God question, but like you say zero plus zero equals one.

But the one thing,I have to ask why do you say you cannot get something from nothing. This again is one of those words that makes no sense and we dont understand truly. What is nothing?

This universe could not have been created from nothing therefore God must have created from God's own substance.

Since God is energy, that would appear to add some credence to Energy= Mass times the square of the speed of light.

That is why when you split the atom you can release massive amounts of energy from such a tiny particle, hence the Atom Bomb.

It all fits if you think about it.

As for nothing, the simplest answer is that nothing is what about 80% of everything consists of. It is the space that electrons move in for instance.

If you looked through a powerful enough microscope you would soon find that there is no such thing as a true solid.

For instance, some scientists believe that if you could compress every human being to the extent that there was no empty space available at any level, the whole of the human race would fit in a matchbox, but of course it would become a very heavy matchbox because the total weight of humanity would not be decreased at all.

Again if you think about it that is obvious or there would be no way electrons could move, and therefore electricity would not work.

Nothing in sense of the space that an electron moves in,is what science says nothing is. This is not what the layman thinks of nothing. However,this is important if you accept this as nothing.

If this is nothing,then in this nothing,the Casmir effect can take place.This is the creation of something from nothing. That disproves your God hypothesis, as you say God had to have created the universe or something cannot come from nothing..

I don;t think that the nothing we are talking about here is any different to what anyone thinks of as nothing the point is that few realise that nothing appears in the places in which it does, or such minute quantities, if one can use such a word for nothing.

Maybe I am misunderstanding it, but I see the so called Casmir effect as being exactly what creation is talking about, since the only thing God could have created the universe from, particle by particle, was his own energy, since nothing else existed.

What needs to be remembered is that the spirit realm is one of pure energy, This energy is carried over into the physical world and is fact is the energy, the spirit which empowers our bodies and gives them life, hence when we die, as scripture says, that energy, that spirit returns to the God who sent it.

In fact energy is the only connection between the physical world and the spirit world.

I do not expect many to get this, but it is part of what those of us who are given the completely undeserved privilege of holy spirit are give to understand, because it is the very means by which holy spirit influences us. As Paul said "God's spirit bears witness with our spirit".

That witness bearing is far more than an emotional experience it is a real empowering, especially of our thinking abilities, and in fact it does leave withdrawal symptoms when it is completely taken away from us by God for whatever reason, hence when Solomon sinned and God's spirit was withdrawn from him "a bad spirit came over him".

The drawback being that you cannot show anyone the results of it, because it is not tangible.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 8:08:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 6:51:38 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 12/5/2013 8:26:01 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/5/2013 7:20:54 AM, s-anthony wrote:
conundrum:

1. A difficult question or riddle, especially one using a play on words in the answer.

2. A difficult choice or decision that must be made. - http://en.wiktionary.org...

The problem I see in answering the question, "Is God, or the Universe, eternal?", is a question of time. Can that which is temporal have its origin in that which is atemporal, meaning without time? This in itself seems to break the law of noncontradiction.

Secondly, if not, and God, or the Universe, does, indeed, have a beginning, from where did God, or the Universe, come? If from nothing, then, again the law of noncontradiction is broken; for, you can't get something from nothing.

I have been giving this a lot of thought recently.I believe one of the problems is that we cannot truly understand the concept of infinity. This then gets used as a way to get around the God question, but like you say zero plus zero equals one.

But the one thing,I have to ask why do you say you cannot get something from nothing. This again is one of those words that makes no sense and we dont understand truly. What is nothing?

Nothing is nothing, not a thing. When it is we talk about nothing, there is nothing about which to talk. The only meaning we can give to nothing is nothing.

Yes,I understand what you are saying.However there is the nothing that the layman understands,and then there is scientific nothing which is quantum vacuum nothing.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 8:10:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 7:20:27 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 12/5/2013 10:36:32 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/5/2013 7:20:54 AM, s-anthony wrote:
conundrum:

1. A difficult question or riddle, especially one using a play on words in the answer.

2. A difficult choice or decision that must be made. - http://en.wiktionary.org...

The problem I see in answering the question, "Is God, or the Universe, eternal?", is a question of time. Can that which is temporal have its origin in that which is atemporal, meaning without time? This in itself seems to break the law of noncontradiction.

Secondly, if not, and God, or the Universe, does, indeed, have a beginning, from where did God, or the Universe, come? If from nothing, then, again the law of noncontradiction is broken; for, you can't get something from nothing.

God existed before time did, in fact time only came into being with the first of his creations.

Again, speaking of that which is timeless, with tensed modifiers.


Since time is simply a measurement of change, when there is nothing to change there is nothing to measure, therefore no time exists.

The universe is eternal in the sense that it will exist for as long as God wants it to, therefore, since God has no reason to ever destroy it, it will never end.

Again, speaking of that which is timeless, with tensed modifiers.


Man was created to be eternal, in the same sense, however Adam made it necessary for God to remove his ability to live forever, and simply gave him sufficient time to start the human race. Since that time all die, until the issue that Satan raised is finally proven to be false in all states and all conditions, if not in the case of all people.

Humans were created eternal yet were not? If God created humans to be eternal (which in itself makes no sense), humans would be eternal.


Once that is finalised mankind will once again have the chance of living forever.

If there's any break in the eternity of human beings, then, they were never eternal, from the beginning. Eternity is beyond temporal limits; in other words, it doesn't begin in time and neither does it end in time; it's beyond time.

I think you are confusing eternity with immortality.

However, everything except God has a beginning and can potentially have an end, including his son who came to earth to inhabit the body of Jesus, and thus become the Christ.

Eternity, certainly in scriptural terms, has a beginning and can have an end, and that is directed solely by God.

In fact if the truth be known, even Christ and the anointed. all of whom are granted immortality for their faithful service under trial, and to death, could in theory still be brought to an end, and their immortality results simply from the fact that God has promised they will never die, and eh never breaks his promises.

These things science will never understand, and only those given God's wisdom, according to his promise, can hope to do so.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 8:16:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 8:08:39 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/6/2013 6:51:38 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 12/5/2013 8:26:01 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/5/2013 7:20:54 AM, s-anthony wrote:
conundrum:

1. A difficult question or riddle, especially one using a play on words in the answer.

2. A difficult choice or decision that must be made. - http://en.wiktionary.org...

The problem I see in answering the question, "Is God, or the Universe, eternal?", is a question of time. Can that which is temporal have its origin in that which is atemporal, meaning without time? This in itself seems to break the law of noncontradiction.

Secondly, if not, and God, or the Universe, does, indeed, have a beginning, from where did God, or the Universe, come? If from nothing, then, again the law of noncontradiction is broken; for, you can't get something from nothing.

I have been giving this a lot of thought recently.I believe one of the problems is that we cannot truly understand the concept of infinity. This then gets used as a way to get around the God question, but like you say zero plus zero equals one.

But the one thing,I have to ask why do you say you cannot get something from nothing. This again is one of those words that makes no sense and we dont understand truly. What is nothing?

Nothing is nothing, not a thing. When it is we talk about nothing, there is nothing about which to talk. The only meaning we can give to nothing is nothing.

Yes,I understand what you are saying.However there is the nothing that the layman understands,and then there is scientific nothing which is quantum vacuum nothing.

To me, nothing is quite simply that, nothing, however I would not presume to say what others understand by it, since I only have the right to speak for myself.

Such statements remind me very much of the TV interviewer who says something like "everybody enjoys Christmas". How does he or she know? I for one have known many people who do not like it, some, like myself, because of the lies it represents.

As someone else once said, "Those who generalise are generally wrong to do so", or words to that effect.
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 9:16:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
MCB: "However, everything except God has a beginning and can potentially have an end, including his son who came to earth to inhabit the body of Jesus, and thus become the Christ.'

Anna: The preceding is just another example of your spewing some more BotchTower nonsense, perhaps interjecting it out of sheer habit. Exactly what does your addendum-type comment beginning with "including His son ...." have to do with the subject at hand with iamantheist and s-anthony? Answer: absolutely nothing! Nothing at all.

MCB: "In fact if the truth be known, even Christ and the anointed, all of whom are granted immortality for their faithful service under trial, and to death, could in theory still be brought to an end, and their immortality results simply from the fact that God has promised they will never die, and he never breaks his promises."

Anna: Makes sense.

1. God never breaks His promises
2. God has promised they will never die.
3. Therefore, they could "in theory still be brought to an end"

I'm sure the atheists will have - or could have - a field day with that one. I would like to remind the atheists that such a view does not represent Christianity, but rather is some more of that wonderful "new light" (gleaned in 2007) which replaced the "old light" (gleaned in 1935) which was once "new light" when it replaced the "old light" of 1916, which by the way was once "new light" as it replaced the "new light" of 1881.

It seems that there is a ton of infidelity going on up in heaven these days, as the "anointed class" among Witnesses appears to be growing daily - up 40% in the last 5 years. Their own numbers indicate that in the last five years, over 3,000 folks have been kicked out of heaven. One can always calculate the heavenly evictions! Currently we have an attrition rate of in the heavenly realms of about 2% every 5 years, it seems.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 9:19:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Iamatheist: "I have been giving this a lot of thought recently.I believe one of the problems is that we cannot truly understand the concept of infinity. "

Anna: Amen to that, and the more one contemplates it, the more one realizes that he cannot comprehend it. Infinity is the only concept of which I am aware that the more one dwells on it, thinks about it, and talks about, the more aware he becomes that he cannot grasp it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 9:36:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 9:16:14 AM, annanicole wrote:
MCB: "However, everything except God has a beginning and can potentially have an end, including his son who came to earth to inhabit the body of Jesus, and thus become the Christ.'

Anna: The preceding is just another example of your spewing some more BotchTower nonsense, perhaps interjecting it out of sheer habit. Exactly what does your addendum-type comment beginning with "including His son ...." have to do with the subject at hand with iamantheist and s-anthony? Answer: absolutely nothing! Nothing at all.

So? it was still factual.


MCB: "In fact if the truth be known, even Christ and the anointed, all of whom are granted immortality for their faithful service under trial, and to death, could in theory still be brought to an end, and their immortality results simply from the fact that God has promised they will never die, and he never breaks his promises."

Anna: Makes sense.

1. God never breaks His promises
2. God has promised they will never die.
3. Therefore, they could "in theory still be brought to an end"

Try,:

1: God never breaks is promises.
2: God has promised that they will never die.
3: Therefore, though God does not lose the power to end thier lives he willingly relinquishes it in order to keep his word.

Again you show a very poor understanding of spiritual matters.

There is nothing that God created, which he cannot destroy. simple as. However because like Jesus, the anointed have "learned obedience through suffering", they have been granted the right never to have to forfeit their lives again. Not exactly a promise God could make to any who had not earned it.

Hebrews 5:8-10
8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered. 9 And after he had been made perfect, he became responsible for everlasting salvation to all those obeying him, 10 because he has been designated by God a high priest in the manner of Melchizedek.


I'm sure the atheists will have - or could have - a field day with that one. I would like to remind the atheists that such a view does not represent Christianity, but rather is some more of that wonderful "new light" (gleaned in 2007) which replaced the "old light" (gleaned in 1935) which was once "new light" when it replaced the "old light" of 1916, which by the way was once "new light" as it replaced the "new light" of 1881.


Yes they probably will just as they have a fierld day with much of the Apostate nonesense that you preach.

It seems that there is a ton of infidelity going on up in heaven these days, as the "anointed class" among Witnesses appears to be growing daily - up 40% in the last 5 years. Their own numbers indicate that in the last five years, over 3,000 folks have been kicked out of heaven. One can always calculate the heavenly evictions! Currently we have an attrition rate of in the heavenly realms of about 2% every 5 years, it seems.

The infidelity would not be happening in heaven, it would have happened whilst they were still on the earth, if indeed it happened at all.

You even fault the JWs for having the honesty to report that more are partaking, even if no-one does know why and it looks suspicious. I doubt if any were expecting it, but if it is happening it has to be reported.

Also if someone wants to partake as the emblems are passed from hand to hand, there is not reason why anyone would stop them since it is a completely personal choice.

Only God knows the reasons for the increase, or in fact of the increase is due to people who think, or want to think, that they are of the anointed when they are or not. Since only God can read hearts only God knows, so we have to leave him to judge that genuineness of their claims.

Again you twist everything to your own ends. It is absolutely impossible to blame the JWs for the decisions of individuals, whether baptised, or unbaptised. First time memorial attendees or not.

No-one makes any note of who partakes, since that is no-ones business other than their, there is simply an anonymous count as the emblems are passed from brother to brother, sister to sister.

Basically you are trying to make an issue out of a personal decision, over which only the individual has any control.

Quite pathetic really, lol, and indicative of your real motivation.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 9:38:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 9:19:37 AM, annanicole wrote:
Iamatheist: "I have been giving this a lot of thought recently.I believe one of the problems is that we cannot truly understand the concept of infinity. "

Anna: Amen to that, and the more one contemplates it, the more one realizes that he cannot comprehend it. Infinity is the only concept of which I am aware that the more one dwells on it, thinks about it, and talks about, the more aware he becomes that he cannot grasp it.

There are a lot of things you fail to grasp, notably "the deep things of God".
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 10:29:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
MCB: "Only God knows the reasons for the increase, or in fact of the increase is due to people who think, or want to think, that they are of the anointed when they are or not. Since only God can read hearts only God knows, so we have to leave him to judge that genuineness of their claims."

Anna: Why, I find that hard to believe, as the Witnesses were oh-so-quick to point out the gradual but consistent decline in memorial participants as prima facie evidence that the anointed class was slowly dying off. Thus, they had a ready explanation - for seventy years! But now, when it comes to this 40% jump over five years, they just can't explain it? It's funny how such anecdotal "evidence" is so readily cited when it's in their favor, but when it turns on them, the story is oh-so-different. Now it's "only God knows". Now it's time to talk about "genuineness".

MCB: "However, everything except God has a beginning and can potentially have an end, including his son who came to earth to inhabit the body of Jesus, and thus become the Christ.'

Anna: The preceding is just another example of your spewing some more BotchTower nonsense, perhaps interjecting it out of sheer habit. Exactly what does your addendum-type comment beginning with "including His son ...." have to do with the subject at hand with iamantheist and s-anthony? Answer: absolutely nothing! Nothing at all.

MCB: So? it was still factual.


Anna: No, it's not factual, but that wasn't the point. The point was and is that it is wholly irrelevant to your point. You could have made your little point just as easily without succumbing to that ever-present compulsion to toss in some WatchTower garbage.

MCB: "There is nothing that God created, which he cannot destroy. simple as. However because like Jesus, the anointed have "learned obedience through suffering"

Anna: Pfffffffft. "Learning obedience through suffering" has nothing at all to do with Holy Spirit baptism or the lack of it. Thousands upon thousands of Christian martyrs never had and never claimed to have Holy Spirit baptism. This "anointed class" business was a doctrine concocted in the mid-1930's by Rutherford, the same ding-a-ling who deeded cars to Samson and Samuel so they could have a nice ride when they returned.

Anna: I'm sure the atheists will have - or could have - a field day with that one. I would like to remind the atheists that such a view does not represent Christianity, but rather is some more of that wonderful "new light" (gleaned in 2007) which replaced the "old light" (gleaned in 1935) which was once "new light" when it replaced the "old light" of 1916, which by the way was once "new light" as it replaced the "new light" of 1881.

MCB: Yes they probably will just as they have a fierld day with much of the Apostate nonesense that you preach
.

Anna: You don't see them doing it, do you? Nope, because I'm not running around claiming that God imparts divine wisdom directly into my brain, nor am I coming up with far-fetched speculations on future events. I do not have to make up imaginary "dual fulfillment" theories just to satisfy my speculations.

MCB: "1: God never breaks is promises.
2: God has promised that they will never die.
3: Therefore, though God does not lose the power to end thier lives he willingly relinquishes it in order to keep his word."


Anna: Oh, wait a minute! We aren't talking about "God's power" to do this or that. God could make the cow jump over the moon, but He's not going to. If God has given His word that certain people will never die, then I'm quite sure that they won't die.

I do not recall the WatchTower ever saying that they would die, either - until they ran into problems with their so-called "anointed class" and Governing Board. Then they needed an excuse to come up with some more of these "anointed class" people, so they opened the gates again. Some more "new light"!

MCB: "You even fault the JWs for having the honesty to report that more are partaking, even if no-one does know why and it looks suspicious. I doubt if any were expecting it, but if it is happening it has to be reported."

Anna: Nobody would have expected it? EVERYBODY would have expected it! Who wants to sit down here on earth when heaven is once again a possibility? The truth is that the Witnesses do not have and never have had even ONE person who was baptized in the Spirit - and nobody else has either for the last 1,950 years or so.

Do you think an old idiot like Judge Rutherford was actually ANOINTED? You surmise that a Holy Spirit-baptized person would be a lunatic who deeded a house to Samson?

MCB: "Again you twist everything to your own ends. It is absolutely impossible to blame the JWs for the decisions of individuals"

Anna: I blame the WatchTower with filling people's heads with even the possibility that they could be baptized in the Holy Spirit. Then I blame the individuals for actually thinking that they are.

MCB: "Basically you are trying to make an issue out of a personal decision, over which only the individual has any control. Quite pathetic really, lol, and indicative of your real motivation."

Anna: It works both ways. All those years that the WatchTower proudly pointed to a gradually decreasing memorial participation as evidence of anything was, of course, pure bs. Yet they did it - and did it relatively recently. "As expected, our memorial participation has gradually declined - pointed to the fact that the end is just around the corner." That's how they talked. Now we learn from you that those seventy years of decline was evidence .... of absolutely NOTHING.

Tell me: what was their motivation for claiming that this gradual decline over a period of seventy years was evidence of anything? When I use the evidence, you don't like it. You claim, "Foul". When they use it - or did use it, surely it was equally useless.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 10:34:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 9:38:15 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/6/2013 9:19:37 AM, annanicole wrote:
Iamatheist: "I have been giving this a lot of thought recently.I believe one of the problems is that we cannot truly understand the concept of infinity. "

Anna: Amen to that, and the more one contemplates it, the more one realizes that he cannot comprehend it. Infinity is the only concept of which I am aware that the more one dwells on it, thinks about it, and talks about, the more aware he becomes that he cannot grasp it.

There are a lot of things you fail to grasp, notably "the deep things of God".

Like deeding a mansion out in San Diego to King David, Samson, Samuel, et al because I have "proof positive" that their return is imminent? That was pretty deep. So deep, in fact, that one needs hip waders. Who paid for that mansion? What happened to the "proof positive"?

1. Rutherford said that "Millions Now Living Will Never Die" - in 1920.
2. The JW's said that the way to "never die" in 1920 was to live a Godly life.
3. Rutherford was living in 1920.
4. Rutherford died.

Draw your own conclusions.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
21st_Century_Occultist
Posts: 65
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 10:34:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/5/2013 7:20:54 AM, s-anthony wrote:
conundrum:

1. A difficult question or riddle, especially one using a play on words in the answer.

2. A difficult choice or decision that must be made. - http://en.wiktionary.org...

The problem I see in answering the question, "Is God, or the Universe, eternal?", is a question of time. Can that which is temporal have its origin in that which is atemporal, meaning without time? This in itself seems to break the law of noncontradiction.

Secondly, if not, and God, or the Universe, does, indeed, have a beginning, from where did God, or the Universe, come? If from nothing, then, again the law of noncontradiction is broken; for, you can't get something from nothing.

If God has a beginning then 0 + 0 does indeed = 1. If something eternt exists there was never 0 in this first place.
The Method of Science, the Aim of Religion
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 10:46:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
MCB: "8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered. 9 And after he had been made perfect, he became responsible for everlasting salvation to all those obeying him, 10 because he has been designated by God a high priest in the manner of Melchizedek."

Anna: "In the manner of Melchizedek" is a poor translation. The word taxis does not mean "manner" and is not correctly translated "manner". The word means arrangement or order - or classification, from which we get our word taxonomy.

Being "designated in the manner of Melchizedek" robs the passage of its meaning. If you are going to quote the Bible, then by all means quote it. If you intend to quote something else (which you often do), then please identify it as, for instance:

"Heb 5: 10, from something other than the Bible"

That way, we'll know that you are citing a commentary. It is difficult enough to discuss the Bible without throwing incorrect perversions into the mix.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 11:10:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 10:46:19 AM, annanicole wrote:
MCB: "8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered. 9 And after he had been made perfect, he became responsible for everlasting salvation to all those obeying him, 10 because he has been designated by God a high priest in the manner of Melchizedek."

Anna: "In the manner of Melchizedek" is a poor translation. The word taxis does not mean "manner" and is not correctly translated "manner". The word means arrangement or order - or classification, from which we get our word taxonomy.

Being "designated in the manner of Melchizedek" robs the passage of its meaning. If you are going to quote the Bible, then by all means quote it. If you intend to quote something else (which you often do), then please identify it as, for instance:

"Heb 5: 10, from something other than the Bible"

That way, we'll know that you are citing a commentary. It is difficult enough to discuss the Bible without throwing incorrect perversions into the mix.

I don't see what difference your little bit of petty finickiness makes, the meaning is the same. Christ became only the second human ever to be both King and High Priest. That is the point that Paul is making.

Why would I cite a commentary? Citing scripture is far better since that is the word of God whereas commentaries are the words of man, and generally of Apostate man at that.

Again, as usual, you rely on the wisdom of men rather than the wisdom of God.

Typical however of pettiness, forgetting that it is the meaning that matters not the exact wording..

Hebrews 5:10 only appears in the bible. It is an integral part of the bible.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 11:11:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 10:34:26 AM, 21st_Century_Occultist wrote:
At 12/5/2013 7:20:54 AM, s-anthony wrote:
conundrum:

1. A difficult question or riddle, especially one using a play on words in the answer.

2. A difficult choice or decision that must be made. - http://en.wiktionary.org...

The problem I see in answering the question, "Is God, or the Universe, eternal?", is a question of time. Can that which is temporal have its origin in that which is atemporal, meaning without time? This in itself seems to break the law of noncontradiction.

Secondly, if not, and God, or the Universe, does, indeed, have a beginning, from where did God, or the Universe, come? If from nothing, then, again the law of noncontradiction is broken; for, you can't get something from nothing.

If God has a beginning then 0 + 0 does indeed = 1. If something eternt exists there was never 0 in this first place.

Good point.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 11:20:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 10:34:21 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/6/2013 9:38:15 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/6/2013 9:19:37 AM, annanicole wrote:
Iamatheist: "I have been giving this a lot of thought recently.I believe one of the problems is that we cannot truly understand the concept of infinity. "

Anna: Amen to that, and the more one contemplates it, the more one realizes that he cannot comprehend it. Infinity is the only concept of which I am aware that the more one dwells on it, thinks about it, and talks about, the more aware he becomes that he cannot grasp it.

There are a lot of things you fail to grasp, notably "the deep things of God".

Like deeding a mansion out in San Diego to King David, Samson, Samuel, et al because I have "proof positive" that their return is imminent? That was pretty deep. So deep, in fact, that one needs hip waders. Who paid for that mansion? What happened to the "proof positive"?

1. Rutherford said that "Millions Now Living Will Never Die" - in 1920.
2. The JW's said that the way to "never die" in 1920 was to live a Godly life.
3. Rutherford was living in 1920.
4. Rutherford died.

Draw your own conclusions.

Has he died or was he resurrected to heaven to rule with Christ? You don't know that any more than I do so you are commenting on something you have no possible knowledge of or ability to judge.

2 Corinthians 3:18 And all of us, while we with unveiled faces reflect like mirrors the glory of Jehovah, are transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another, exactly as it is done by Jehovah the Spirit.

1 Corinthains 15:50-54
50 However, this I say, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit God"s kingdom, neither does corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Look! I tell YOU a sacred secret: We shall not all fall asleep [in death], but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, during the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised up incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this which is corruptible must put on incorruption, and this which is mortal must put on immortality. 54 But when [this which is corruptible puts on incorruption and] this which is mortal puts on immortality, then the saying will take place that is written: "Death is swallowed up forever."

True, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary I tend to believe that he is more likely to have ascended to heaven than not, but I for one will never know because that is not my destination.

Again your true colours are showing,.
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 11:46:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
MCB: "Why would I cite a commentary? Citing scripture is far better since that is the word of God whereas commentaries are the words of man, and generally of Apostate man at that."

Anna: I have no idea, really. Heb 5: 10 states,

"named of God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek."

That's not what you said - and you can't even see any difference between "in the manner of Melchizedek" and "after the order of Melchizedek". Jesus Christ was never called to be a high priest in the manner of Melchizedek, but He was most assuredly a priest after the order of Melchizedek.

Since you claim it is petty, why not get it petty-right? As you say, YOUR true colors are showing. You know full well that "after the order" is correct, so why persist in citing anything different?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."