Craftsman

We difine nice and balanaced by the event which lead to our existence which continues today. Also I have noticed that most of you contiune to make a comment similar comments such as the following. Yawn. Usual misconceptions, usual blatant abuse of 'logic' and assuming that evolution is always random (this isn't actually the case) bla bla. First blatant use of logic? So now your saying that logic is crap when it does suit you? And i dont think that evolution is random, so what are you smoking? Also just becasue you reply to a statment i make does not always mean that you have won the argument. If you wanna win this arugment make clear statments, and no short, stupid comments that only show how anable you are to directly challenge the question. Like with the theory i presented some of you instead of intellignetly anayasing you critisize it but with no base or substance. Step One: Existence Proof of Higher Worlds Let us suppose that human reason forms a closed system. By 'human reason' I mean the set of synthetic a priori principles that delineate the categories of human thought, together with the principles of classical logic. Godel's incompleteness proof showed that any closed system is incomplete in the sense that there are true sentences that are unprovable in the system. These sentences are sentences about the system itself, such as "S is consistent", where 'S' refers to some closed system. These sentences can only be proved by moving up a type into a higher order "metasystem". Now consider the sentence "S is consistent" as applied to human reason. It follows from Godel's incompleteness proof that this sentence is unprovable in the system of human reason. Nevertheless, we do have inductive, empirical, and pragmatic grounds for believing that human reason is consistent. We have an inductive basis in that other smaller systems of a lower order can be proved to be consistent by means of a higher order system. We have empirical grounds in that we have yet to deduce a contradiction from the laws of classical logic. We have a pragmatic basis in that the use of human reason has proved to be of practical value as a framework for conceiving the world. But if the sentence "S is consistent", as applied to human reason, is true, it is provable, as is shown by an application of Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason. This principle states that there is a sufficient reason for everything. Leibniz intended this to mean that there is an a priori proof for every true sentence (or proposition). But a proof of "S is consistent" cannot be given in the system of human reason (our system). In order to do this, one would have to transcend the bound of human reason, which, as we all know, cannot be done. In less picturesque terms, the proof could only be given in a system more powerful than ours, one which is "up a type" from ours. But it follows from the incompleteness proof and Leibniz's Law that there must be such a system. Hence, higher worlds exist. Step Two: A Synthetic Proof that God Exists Since the laws of logic describe the way our minds necessarily work, we cannot conceive of what a Super Logic of the kind whose existence has been proved is like. We stand with respect to such a system in the same way a person who is a point on a line stands with respect to flatland, or in the same way in which a person in flatland stands with respect to a three-dimensional world. We are simply unable to conceive of such a world. Nevertheless, such a world must exist, as has been demonstrated. Because no logical system can exist apart from some mind, the existence of a Super Logic requires the existence of a higher mind. Since there are infinitely many such logical systems (the same argument could be repeated for each logical system), these systems must describe the workings of an infinite mind. But only God can have an infinite mind. Therefore, God exists. http://www.flowresearch.com/syntheticproof.htm Well...

I have problem, with people taking my arguments apart as they try to get cheap points by taking parts out of there original context. But back to the arguement. The Anthropic Principle points out that there are over one hundred variables to this universe, that would have made life as we know it impossible, if they were even slightly different. This Universe had to be finely tuned to the conditions that make the evolution of life possible. Could this have happened by chance? Consider the following analogy. If you went down the street and saw a quarter on the sidewalk, you would think, naturally, "someone dropped a quarter." If you went down the street and saw a handful of quarters on the sidewalk, you would think, "Someone had a big hole in their pockets, or dropped a roll of quarters." But if you went down the street and saw one hundred quarters on the sidewalk, and they were all carefully balanced precariously on their edges, you would have to think somebody did this deliberately." The Universe as we know it, is that carefully balanced. This theory is known as the Strong Anthropic Principle. The only other possibility other than that this Universe was created, is that there are so MANY universes, that the equivalent of one hundred quarters falling out of someone's pocket and ALL of them ending up balanced on their edges occurred, completely by random chance. This theory is known as the, "Weak Anthropic Principle. So if you are a rational thinker here are your only two choices. Believe this Universe was created, or that there are multitudes of universes. Now here is what I call the Modified Weak Anthropic Principle. If there are that many universes, then the chances of a Being like God evolving would also be equally increased by all that abundance. Ecological niches tend not to stay empty. You could, of course, call such a Being something else other than "God." But if it quacks like a Cosmic Duck and it waddles like a Cosmic Duck and it builds little universe nests and lays eggs that turn into baby Cosmic Ducklings, why not it call it a Cosmic Duck? Paul did say we grow into Christ! (Ephesians 4:15). http://www.proofgodexists.org/anthropic_principle.htm Ahhh. Its so good to have people that think alike. After reading this theroy i found it quite convincing. Anyone...

Ahhhh your so classic. Honestly your short sightedness is embarrassing to anyone who reads it. Obviously you forget the context the passage is written. At that time it was impossible to do such things. Anyway you can’t measure the direct mass if fire or wind. End of story. Also you say the bible is false. That’s a good one. Tell it to my mates next time. If its false prove it. (Its one of those questions when we already know the answer)

Give up to what? Ok you seem not able to grasp the point of the bible quote that I resented to you. Here it is in a nutshell. 1) That humans cannot possibly understand the ways that God works and why and I quote "And how can one who is already worn out by the corrupt world understand incorruption?"" 2) And that humans can only understand what

Yet you can not give me the MASS of wind. All you have given me is sciencetific definitons that answer nothing.

Its not 7000 years. The bible starts pretty much with moses. Thats after he left egypt. 2000 BC. And no fire cannot be weighted. If it can prove it to me. Also you cant measure the mass of th wind. Hey, its not cool to say you know something when you dont.

Your mental abilities have not acutally gotton the meaning behind the story. Lets give you one more chance. And no the problem are not solveble. And 5000 years? Thats means in the great age of the egyptians. So once again you are mistaken.

1: Then the angel that had been sent to me, whose name was Uriel, answered 2: and said to me, "Your understanding has utterly failed regarding this world, and do you think you can comprehend the way of the Most High?" 3: Then I said, "Yes, my lord." And he replied to me, "I have been sent to show you three ways, and to put before you three problems. 4: If you can solve one of them for me, I also will show you the way you desire to see, and will teach you why the heart is evil." 5: I said, "Speak on, my lord." And he said to me, "Go, weigh for me the weight of fire, or measure for me a measure of wind, or call back for me the day that is past." 6: I answered and said, "Who of those that have been born can do this, that you ask me concerning these things?" 7: And he said to me, "If I had asked you, `How many dwellings are in the heart of the sea, or how many streams are at the source of the deep, or how many streams are above the firmament, or which are the exits of hell, or which are the entrances of paradise?' 8: Perhaps you would have said to me, `I never went down into the deep, nor as yet into hell, neither did I ever ascend into heaven.' 9: But now I have asked you only about fire and wind and the day, things through which you have passed and without which you cannot exist, and you have given me no answer about them!" 10: And he said to me, "You cannot understand the things with which you have grown up; 11: how then can your mind comprehend the way of the Most High? And how can one who is already worn out by the corrupt world understand incorruption?" When I heard this, I fell on my face 21: For as the land is assigned to the forest and the sea to its waves, so also those who dwell upon earth can understand only what is on the earth, and he who is above the heavens can understand what is above the height of the heavens." 2 Esdras Let me know what you think of this.

Wheres the rest of this post gone?

First u say that these theories of an divine being r rubbish ect. Firstly might i state that Einstein and many other famous scientists all started on theories and at the time they were laughed at and told how stupid they were. They couldn

What a biast article. Obisiously someone to needs something else to cry about. See it for yourself.

U r exactly right hades. But so what. Im sure a even that significent would stay in anyones minds, plus they were Jesus disiples and were infulenced by the holy spirit. Would u forget a event like that?

Dont cry im bak and ready to teach. First read this. The arguments generally adduced by theologians in proof of God's existence are: The a priori argument, which is the testimony afforded by reason. The a posteriori argument, by which we proceed logically from the facts of experience to causes. These arguments are: The cosmological, by which it is proved that there must be a First Cause of all things, for every effect must have a cause. The teleological, or the argument from design. We see everywhere the operations of an intelligent Cause in nature. The moral argument, called also the anthropological argument, based on the moral consciousness and the history of mankind, which exhibits a moral order and purpose which can only be explained on the supposition of the existence of God. Conscience and human history testify that "verily there is a God that judgeth in the earth." (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c038.html) When u THINK about it it is obvious that nature is not a mistake. Where eerything we know of has a start and a finish. A begining and and end. Stars and space did jsut 'exist'. Hmm. Lets see u handle this one. Or in other words how u embarrising try to justify your reasons for doubting the existence of a devine being.

Where

Your arguments are not arguements at all but more like dementing the truth. It like there is a blue pencil, but your saying well its red to a person who can only see red. That person is a sense is u. U choose NOT to accept in any form a truth about a greater being. Even though there are countless tales of miricles and spiritutual enlighment, u comfort yourselve by not believing in them or a God so that in a attept to feel no guilt for the wrongs of your life. You want to be 'free'. U want to ahve to answer to no one. So then what is the point of your existence. To live the way u want and die and if u were never born. No. Ultimate happiness is with the creator. Our perpose on earth is to live good faithful lives and to resist evils temptations. None of us a perfect and we all sin. But God forgives if u are sincere. Sorry but i forgot u dont believe that. This life is here for fun and then its over. That would work..if only it made sense. Cheers

Go through this site. It should quash your ignorance. http://self-improvement-personal-developme...m/p_view_a.html Cheers

Thats right. He cant be proven with solid scientic evidence, becasue he does not wish to. That is the point of faith. If he could be proven of course everyone would believe. But its your choice to believe. Also i believe that christian, muslim, hundi ect all have the same God as all have similar ideals.

Here are three thoughts that evevently prove that there is a God. 1)First, the world seems to work according to the universal law of cause and effect. That is, every observable effect must have had an initial "push" by some agent or cause. Every "thing" (a highly scientific term) that we observe is dependent upon other "things" for its existence. For example, children are dependent on parents and the earth is dependent on the sun. Thinking all the way back to the first event, it could be asked, who was the cause? This is where it appears that there must be a being that is "uncaused." Philosophers like to call this a necessary being. Could that be God? 2)A second sign that should be considered is what scientists today are calling the marks of Intelligent Design. The suggestion is that the universe exhibits purpose, design, and intent. This is not a new idea; William Paley suggested that if you were walking through a field and found a watch on the ground that you would recognize it as a piece of machinery that had purpose and did not simply grow in the forest like plants and trees. A rational conclusion would be that someone intentionally built the watch. The universe is infinitely more complex than a watch and as a result points that much more to an intelligent designer. 3)A third mark has to do with the moral foundation of the universe. C. S. Lewis referred to this as the "law of human nature." This is not to say that people everywhere are in agreement on all moral values, but that everyone does tend to live by certain common moral principles. For example, people and cultures have different ideas about when it is appropriate to take another person's life, but no one (that would be considered sane) would hold that indiscriminate cold-blooded murder for no reason would be appropriate. It appears that humanity has been intentionally created with an internal moral compass. All three of these marks appeal to our common sense and fit observations that can be made about the world. Everyone may not be completely convinced by this reasoning, but it seems to make more sense to believe that God is real than that he is not. If that is true, then maybe there are other things that can be known about God. Why don't you try to pick up the trail and see where it leads? (from http://www.everystudent.com/wires/Godreal.html) So hades sorry mate, but it just seems that u lose this round and u always will. U keep on thinking that u right. What makes u so special? Hades u got the choice mate. Thats all i wanna say. Cheers

Why?

Yes it should not be called Knights of the old republic. Something different would be much better.

Hades why r u so negitive. Its annoying. KOTOR 2 would so smash Jade Empire to pieces.

So who cares if the story is finished. Just make a new story. And KOTOR 2 will fix the faults of the original. And a game that has made millions can hardly be called a hand me down.

Is anyone here going to see that Mel Gison film bout Christs last hours? Cheers

Here seems to be the lastest in the KOTOR 2 roumours... 'The Hedgehog Network- In related news, XBOX and PC owners can expect to see a KOTOR 2 trailer at E3 says sources within Obsidian! ' From... http://www.gamedreamz.com/index.cgi?m=stories&s=read&id=631 Lookin good