Revan, Bane, and Sidious vs. Sion

"The opinions of a God become the facts that the mortal races are compelled to follow."

An opinion that is wrong does not make you stupid. It makes you stupid when it is consitently proven false, and when more than the people who said it was wrong, and attempted to prove it, try to prove to you that it is wrong.
Ill provide the example of Christians and Atheists.
They (atheists) call Christians ignorant because they believe in God and Jesus, and everything else they believe. Well, Christians think Atheists are ignorant because they DONT believe in God, despite all the things that "prove" His existance. Well, atheists cite the Big Bang and all that, yada yada. Christians cite Gods omnipotence, and o,niscience (sp?)

Now tell me which group is wrong, just from that, and tell me if they are stupid.

That example was the first that came to mind. I had others but I REALLY didnt want to start political shit, thats tends to rage longer than religious (unless your an extremist)
While its true, most Christians are ignorant of how the Bible came to be, so Atheists are ignorant of something they cant see, they are insecure in that they cant stand to think they are accountable to something higher. Both groups are faulted, and both groups can improve.

Originally posted by Pwned
An opinion that is wrong does not make you stupid. It makes you stupid when it is consitently proven false, and when more than the people who said it was wrong, and attempted to prove it, try to prove to you that it is wrong.
Ill provide the example of Christians and Atheists.
They (atheists) call Christians ignorant because they believe in God and Jesus, and everything else they believe. Well, Christians think Atheists are ignorant because they DONT believe in God, despite all the things that "prove" His existance. Well, atheists cite the Big Bang and all that, yada yada. Christians cite Gods omnipotence, and o,niscience (sp?)

Now tell me which group is wrong, just from that, and tell me if they are stupid.

That example was the first that came to mind. I had others but I REALLY didnt want to start political shit, thats tends to rage longer than religious (unless your an extremist)
While its true, most Christians are ignorant of how the Bible came to be, so Atheists are ignorant of something they cant see, they are insecure in that they cant stand to think they are accountable to something higher. Both groups are faulted, and both groups can improve.

Seems more rational than religious people or atheists.

David Hume showed us all why no one is a true sceptic.

That being said, some answers are more likely than others.

One thing that can at the very least be proven is that there was such a thing as a "beginning" that randomly came into being.

Originally posted by Iden Enserath
One thing that can at the very least be proven is that there was such a thing as a "beginning" that randomly came into being.

I'm not so sure about this. The concept that time has a beginning seems odd considering everything else in natural is observed in cycles.

Well the simple fact that time has, at any given time, a present, would prove that it also has a beginning, otherwise there would be an infinite span of time that proceeds any given present point in time, whereby the present point in time would never be able to be fully realised.

Though I must say it's a concept I have a hard time wrapping my head around, but it would seem that time can be proven to possess a beginning, within the confines of potentially imperfect human reasoning.

What an absolute load of bull. You are not, in any way, shape, or form, able to prove that our beginning was a "random" occurance.

There are many theoretical physics theory that debate whether the "big bang" was the creation of all universes or just ours, or the creation of our particular dimension of universe, etc. Chaotic Inflation is a mind blowing concept.

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
What an absolute load of bull. You are not, in any way, shape, or form, able to prove that our beginning was a "random" occurance.

In the sense that a "beginning" can be proven, there would have been no causal means in existence by which it would have been able to have come about.

Well this thread got off track fast.

And can we not discuss the concept of time as though its something we understand? I mean even Hawking and Einstein don't understand it. What shot does anyone here have?

The extent to which we understand the concept is sufficient in arriving at that definitive conclusion.

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
What an absolute load of bull. You are not, in any way, shape, or form, able to prove that our beginning was a "random" occurance.

Originally posted by Pwned
An opinion that is wrong does not make you stupid. It makes you stupid when it is consitently proven false, and when more than the people who said it was wrong, and attempted to prove it, try to prove to you that it is wrong.
Ill provide the example of Christians and Atheists.
They (atheists) call Christians ignorant because they believe in God and Jesus, and everything else they believe. Well, Christians think Atheists are ignorant because they DONT believe in God, despite all the things that "prove" His existance. Well, atheists cite the Big Bang and all that, yada yada. Christians cite Gods omnipotence, and o,niscience (sp?)

Now tell me which group is wrong, just from that, and tell me if they are stupid.

That example was the first that came to mind. I had others but I REALLY didnt want to start political shit, thats tends to rage longer than religious (unless your an extremist)
While its true, most Christians are ignorant of how the Bible came to be, so Atheists are ignorant of something they cant see, they are insecure in that they cant stand to think they are accountable to something higher. Both groups are faulted, and both groups can improve.

Meanwhile, atheism is not even a worldview, so there's not really any traction to be had for generalizing.

Originally posted by Iden Enserath
In the sense that a "beginning" can be proven, there would have been no causal means in existence by which it would have been able to have come about.

I see what you are saying there. However, with that being said, there cannot be a beginning in the truest sense then, since no beginning can come about on its own. Therefore, there must be an absolute first cause who has always existed. And this first cause is GOD!!

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
I see what you are saying there. However, with that being said, there cannot be a beginning in the truest sense then, since no beginning can come about on its own. Therefore, there must be an absolute first cause who has always existed. And this first cause is GOD!!

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
I see what you are saying there. However, with that being said, there cannot be a beginning in the truest sense then, since no beginning can come about on its own. Therefore, there must be an absolute first cause who has always existed. And this first cause is GOD!!

It's nice that you've investigated your faith, though.

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
I see what you are saying there. However, with that being said, there cannot be a beginning in the truest sense then, since no beginning can come about on its own. Therefore, there must be an absolute first cause who has always existed. And this first cause is GOD!!

The First Cause argument eh? Never bought it. Why does God not need an origin but the Big Bang does?

Originally posted by Black bolt z
How did god begin?

If we define God as an omniscient, omnipresent being who is both everything and nothing, he didn't need a beginning. God just was, is, and always will be.. That's if you subscribe to that notion of God.

that's the difference. no one is claiming a bigbang is omnipresent, so it needs an origin.