|
|
| People Counter |
|
|
| Total Votes : 71 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:34 pm
if you guys want proof that there is a higher power just look at numbers. if we created them then why cant we understand them? people literally go mentally insane trying to solve an equation. its impossible for humans to make something that they themselves dont understand. so who made them?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 7:07 pm
read_the_word if you guys want proof that there is a higher power just look at numbers. if we created them then why cant we understand them? people literally go mentally insane trying to solve an equation. its impossible for humans to make something that they themselves dont understand. so who made them? Numbers / logic aren't really things to be created. They are just abstractions that we use to describe reality, or in a sense, part of what reality consists of. We can only "discover" and study numbers, just like we can study the natural world. Mathematics, at least a huge portion of it, is a tool for solving problems and describing things. Equations, in their essence, are problems that need solving. So you're saying that any problem that a person isn't able to solve, is evidence of a higher power? If you run across a sudoku puzzle that you can't solve, was it created by god?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:43 am
Im A Little Pea xxEternallyBluexx False miracles, and those are different. I've never heard of anyone having a vision of Muhammed. More then three religions with a Hell. I do think some people had less time to think then others. On a farm, you work all day long. You're body's probably getting more excercise then your mind in that case. That's true, I suppose. Still brain chemistry does make a difference, and there's some environments or situations that are very hard not to be miserable in. I'm definetely not saying a rich man can't be religious, but I do think it's a factor. It's easier not to worry about what happens after death when you're enjoying your life. And science and religion don't clash, to my mind. Many earlier scientific breakthroughs were made by Christians, and just because science is now advcating evolution doesn't mean it's true, or that it's God vs. science, because if He's real then He created it and there's a reason everything works so well together. The future does kill the past. Two ridulously close sisters can get married and give it a thousand years, and their families won't know a thing about each other. To the universe we're all just dust specks brightly lit for less then a moment. When it comes down to that, everything ceases to matter, unless there's a greater reason for it to. Religion isn't what fills people. Having a relationship with God is. If you meet Him, you'll see. Maybe you've never heard of it because you've never tried. You could ask at the Muslim subforum. Maybe you'd get a positive answer, maybe not, but I seriously doubt that experience is one of a kind. But if you're really interested, I wouldn't mind checking the web. Could be a cool way to practice Arabic. As for hell, there you go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HellI was going to check it anyway and quote it. And when you think of all the factors, I think it was scientific achievements that promoted Atheism. There have always been rich and poor people, always. There have been a few Atheists in history, yes, but there were very few of them, or they preferred keeping their mouths shut in order to not be persecuted for their beliefs. Atheism began to become more popular in the 20th century. I believe it surely is related with new researches and theories of that time. There could be other things too, but there's a reason why so many people turned to it at that time specifically. No, science in general doesn't contradict religion. But there's a pretty big chunk of it that does. I really don't like this idea of 'not having the time'. That's really not true. Even when I was working 16 hours a day, every day, I was thinking about things. I had other things in my mind than what I was doing at the moment. We aren't robots. I still don't see how the future eliminates the present. I am here right now. Nothing that will ever happen, couldn't change me having been here. Science doesn't disprove anything or make it any less magical, or prove anything about anything besides what it is observing. That is not science's task, and this is a large fallacy I find with atheism based on science- They go by the premise that if we understand how something works physically, we know that it can have no source or has no meaning. It looks at things through a vacuum to understand how it works, and the fallacy is thinking of this vacuum of meaning and context as reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:56 am
divineseraph Science doesn't disprove anything or make it any less magical, or prove anything about anything besides what it is observing. That is not science's task, and this is a large fallacy I find with atheism based on science- They go by the premise that if we understand how something works physically, we know that it can have no source or has no meaning. It looks at things through a vacuum to understand how it works, and the fallacy is thinking of this vacuum of meaning and context as reality. What you did right now was an attempt to disprove something I've never even said. We were discussing the different circumstances that could have brought Atheism to spread. Science is NOT a tool of Atheism. It isn't made for it. But some parts of it do put in question the things people thought about the world before. This is ALL I've said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:52 pm
Im A Little Pea xxEternallyBluexx Remind me to do that...I need to catch up on sleep so I'll probaly get off after this reply. And if you find any revelations from other religions, that'd be helpful, though I can't promise I wouldn't argue they were something else. sweatdrop I skimmed through, and also looked up 'devil' and here's what I think: the religions besides Christianity don't seem to say you go to Hell if you aren't of that religion, and some of them don't include a major antagonist who would cause the human race harm, and try to lead people away with false miracles. My point about this, as simply as I can state it is thus: that people got to Hell because they choose not to dwell in the Presence of the one from which life flows. It's also that when other religions don't have an adversery that directy opposes the race, then you can't explain man's suffering, why there is evil in the world, and who would want to lead man away from the true religion-the one that actually worships God. The fact Christianity has these is what supports it. I think it's because with modern advncement, people are beginning to think they don't need God. People love their pride and independence, so if they think they can get by without Him, then of course they're gonna try. Evolution, yeah I know. I still don't believe in macro evoution, but I'll return with that argument afte I read Darwin's Black Box. Of course we're not. But be honest-do you think deep more when you're busy, or after reading a deep book, or writing out your thoughts? What does it matter though? All the people who have witnessed this post will eventually die, and eventually the entire human race will die. Even if a moment exists, if there's no eternal record of it, it doesn't matter. It doesn't even matter if you were Christian or not. If a Christian's right, they go to Heaven, but if an athiest is right the Christian suffers no loss. It's a win-whatever for a Christian, and a lose-whatever for the athiest, and most of the other religions don't damn you if you don't follow them anyway, or have something to rule them out, when compared with Christianity. I ran a search on the word "sin" in that Wikipedia article on Hell, because I don't really have the time to read it all - it directed me right where I wanted to go. It said that Hell is considered a place where people and punished for their sins in Islam, Hinduism, Taoism and Zoroastrianism. The only monotheistic religion I know for sure that doesn't have that kind of hell is Judaism. Actually when I think about it know, I recall reading quite a bit about Muhammad warning the people who don't follow him from hell. I don't know how I know have forgotten about this. So the question still stands. I see what you're saying about busy or not busy. Of course there's a difference, yes. And, I think you don't quite see what I'm saying. It matters to ME. It wouldn't matter to anyone else later on when I'm dead, no. But it matters to me, right now, I exist, and to me, my existence matters very much. Wouldn't YOU care if you died tomorrow or 70 years for now? I could assume you would, because of everything you have in your life that is precious to you. This time, this moment, matters to the people living it right now. It has meaning now. To me, this is enough. For sins-not for following a different religion. I don't think they really even offered a way to salvation, except maybe do better. I wouldn't actually. I'd love not to be here tomorrow, and end up in Heaven. Even if the athiestic perspective is right, I would be better off. The only reason I haven't gone and killed myself is because I don't want to disappoint my Lord (and my sister would be traumatized, but she wants to die too, so we'd probably make a suicide pact if we didn't think it would make God upset with us). So you see, the present moment hardly matters to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:11 pm
Artto xxEternallyBluexx Because I don't have access to either of those books (I doubt my mom would let me read them, so it'll have to wait until I'm paying for my own living space) and because my computer won't download the right kind of Flash so I can't get Youtube to work. And how do you know Darwin's Black Box isn't credible? Have you even read it? And also don't expect me to admit I might be wrong unless you're willing to do the same. Of course I might be wrong. Anyone might be wrong. That doesn't mean I don't think I'm right. Darwin's Black box is about irreducible complexity, which is utterly unconvincing, since all the examples of "irreducible complexity" (such as the eye, the famous bacterial flagellum, the immune system, etc.) have been shown to not be irreducibly complex. The argument pretty much boils down to: "Wow, I can't think of a way that could have evolved! An Intelligent Designer (wink wink) must have done it!" I must admit I haven't read it, but I've seen lectures by Behe where he talks about it. I haven't read On The Origin of species either, for that matter. Those books are not the only sources of information. Okay. Sorry, this topic in particular makes me defensive because no one seems to think creationism could possibly be valid. sweatdrop Can I have the facts in post form please? Like I said, links mess up my computer. >.< More like the odds are so high that aying it happened like that is like saying a bunch of marbles spilled and hit the right keys to make this post. I wonder what the odds are, comparatively? Something like 1/63 to the power of the letters in this post. I believe it's still better odds then the odds of life being formed by way of evolution. No they aren't. Still, you can hardly put a book down unless you've read it or read of it. You may not like the theory, but you haven't read the book to see how it's presented there, so you can't know if it has more evidence or is presented better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:10 pm
read_the_word if you guys want proof that there is a higher power just look at numbers. if we created them then why cant we understand them? people literally go mentally insane trying to solve an equation. its impossible for humans to make something that they themselves dont understand. so who made them? We didn't create numbers, we discovered them: example: There always was an equation to describe the slope of the curve x^2 One day Newton(or Lebniz) was like, "Hey, lookie here, the equation 2x perfectly describes the slope of the curve x^2." If we created numbers, it would be like this "Hey, I think I'll make the slope of x^2 be 2x"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:01 am
xxEternallyBluexx For sins-not for following a different religion. I don't think they really even offered a way to salvation, except maybe do better. I wouldn't actually. I'd love not to be here tomorrow, and end up in Heaven. Even if the athiestic perspective is right, I would be better off. The only reason I haven't gone and killed myself is because I don't want to disappoint my Lord (and my sister would be traumatized, but she wants to die too, so we'd probably make a suicide pact if we didn't think it would make God upset with us). So you see, the present moment hardly matters to me. This is very interesting. I've been thinking about it lately and it's been pretty hard for me to grasp this. I just started thinking about the value people have for their own life when they believe in an afterlife. To me it seems unbelievable to see it as insignificant, because to me it is everything. I don't know anything about Eastern religions. but when it comes to Islam - Muslims believe that those who don't follow Allah and those who aren't faithful Muslims will be punished in hell, but not for eternity, and that only the Mushrikun, who are people who don't worship Allah alone yet worship additional gods and goddesses, will be punished in hell for eternity. Many Muslims would consider the Christian idea of the Holy Trinity and God taking the form of a person a form of Shirk. So you could see in the Muslim faith people believing Christians would go to hell. I don't know how accurate this is for everyone, but this idea exists nonetheless. And who knows, maybe Islam is safer. Muslims do believe Jesus was a prophet, while though claiming he wasn't god's son.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:41 pm
Im A Little Pea xxEternallyBluexx For sins-not for following a different religion. I don't think they really even offered a way to salvation, except maybe do better. I wouldn't actually. I'd love not to be here tomorrow, and end up in Heaven. Even if the athiestic perspective is right, I would be better off. The only reason I haven't gone and killed myself is because I don't want to disappoint my Lord (and my sister would be traumatized, but she wants to die too, so we'd probably make a suicide pact if we didn't think it would make God upset with us). So you see, the present moment hardly matters to me. This is very interesting. I've been thinking about it lately and it's been pretty hard for me to grasp this. I just started thinking about the value people have for their own life when they believe in an afterlife. To me it seems unbelievable to see it as insignificant, because to me it is everything. I don't know anything about Eastern religions. but when it comes to Islam - Muslims believe that those who don't follow Allah and those who aren't faithful Muslims will be punished in hell, but not for eternity, and that only the Mushrikun, who are people who don't worship Allah alone yet worship additional gods and goddesses, will be punished in hell for eternity. Many Muslims would consider the Christian idea of the Holy Trinity and God taking the form of a person a form of Shirk. So you could see in the Muslim faith people believing Christians would go to hell. I don't know how accurate this is for everyone, but this idea exists nonetheless. And who knows, maybe Islam is safer. Muslims do believe Jesus was a prophet, while though claiming he wasn't god's son. That's not quite the punishment that Hell for eternity is... Besides that Muslims follow a single prophet, who claimed to have visions that went agauinst two religions that cam before, who didn't persorm miracles and who made a lot of money off it. If Muhammed was so important, there should have been prophecies surrounding him, and more to it then just his word. Jesus, on the other hand, had a lot of prophecies surrounding Him, and He fulfilled them. Those prophecies for the Messiah, not just a plain old prophet. He performed miracles, raised a dead man, came back from the dead Himself, didn't profit from any of it, and said that all who believed He was God's Son, and who repented would be Saved. Following Islam doesn't make much sense, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:07 pm
xxEternallyBluexx That's not quite the punishment that Hell for eternity is... Besides that Muslims follow a single prophet, who claimed to have visions that went agauinst two religions that cam before, who didn't persorm miracles and who made a lot of money off it. If Muhammed was so important, there should have been prophecies surrounding him, and more to it then just his word. Jesus, on the other hand, had a lot of prophecies surrounding Him, and He fulfilled them. Those prophecies for the Messiah, not just a plain old prophet. He performed miracles, raised a dead man, came back from the dead Himself, didn't profit from any of it, and said that all who believed He was God's Son, and who repented would be Saved. Following Islam doesn't make much sense, in my opinion. It doesn't in mine too, but then again, no other religion makes any sense to me. And whether or not Muhammad was as inspirational as Jesus was or not, according to Muslim belief Christians do go to hell... So again for me I don't really have somewhere to turn to in order to protect myself 'just in case'. What church are you? I'm just curious because really, I don't know all that much about it. I don't even know the difference between the church my Christian family members are part of from the others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:26 pm
xxEternallyBluexx More like the odds are so high that aying it happened like that is like saying a bunch of marbles spilled and hit the right keys to make this post. I wonder what the odds are, comparatively? Something like 1/63 to the power of the letters in this post. I believe it's still better odds then the odds of life being formed by way of evolution. Odds are irrelevant here, because you can't go calculating odds for something that already happened, especially for a random process like evolution. These "odds" are a deliberate misrepresentation. I'll give you an example: Let's say we have a standard deck of 52 cards. I'll pick 4 cards at random, then I'll tell you what I got. For example, I've got an Ace of Spades, Queen of Hearts, 2 of Hearts and 5 of Diamonds (in this specific order). The odds of this happening are: 1/52 * 1/51 * 1/50 * 1/49 = 1.53907717 × 10^(-7) (extremely unlikely). Now, would you say you don't believe that, because the probability is so small? What if I showed you the cards - would you say it was more probable that I cheated? What if I said it was 4 aces in a specific order (the probability would be exactly the same, but it's a nice example of people giving less probability to a specific pattern. Like humans arising by chance (because we value us more than other animals, just like we value 4 aces more than some "random" combination of cards))? The way they calculate this probability (I think you're referring to a single protein that is present in the DNA arising by chance), is that they take all the atoms in the given protein, and calculate the probability of each of them being put in the right place at random. Which is not the case at all, it's not a totally random process, it's a specific process, that leads to the creation of a protein. By the logic they calculate it, any small pebble you pick up is practically impossible, because the atoms in it are in a specific arrangement. But you wouldn't say it was impossible for it to come about by natural processes, and that someone must have carved it. Whew, that was a long write, I hope I made my point clear. smile P.S.: I know what intelligent design is about. I know what this "theory" (it doesn't even qualify as a scientific theory, since it's not testable) states. I know what irreducible complexity is about, what are the arguments for it, and I know what the arguments against it are. I've read up on all this stuff, not from a book, but from articles and such. Believe me, when I tell you, I know all about this stuff. It's one of my favourite topics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:44 pm
Im A Little Pea xxEternallyBluexx That's not quite the punishment that Hell for eternity is... Besides that Muslims follow a single prophet, who claimed to have visions that went agauinst two religions that cam before, who didn't persorm miracles and who made a lot of money off it. If Muhammed was so important, there should have been prophecies surrounding him, and more to it then just his word. Jesus, on the other hand, had a lot of prophecies surrounding Him, and He fulfilled them. Those prophecies for the Messiah, not just a plain old prophet. He performed miracles, raised a dead man, came back from the dead Himself, didn't profit from any of it, and said that all who believed He was God's Son, and who repented would be Saved. Following Islam doesn't make much sense, in my opinion. It doesn't in mine too, but then again, no other religion makes any sense to me. And whether or not Muhammad was as inspirational as Jesus was or not, according to Muslim belief Christians do go to hell... So again for me I don't really have somewhere to turn to in order to protect myself 'just in case'. What church are you? I'm just curious because really, I don't know all that much about it. I don't even know the difference between the church my Christian family members are part of from the others. My point is more that it's so likely Muhammed was a liar that that defeats the purpose of Islam's Hell. And I'm a non-denominational Fundamentalist, which is a bit like being Protestant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:01 pm
Artto xxEternallyBluexx More like the odds are so high that aying it happened like that is like saying a bunch of marbles spilled and hit the right keys to make this post. I wonder what the odds are, comparatively? Something like 1/63 to the power of the letters in this post. I believe it's still better odds then the odds of life being formed by way of evolution. Odds are irrelevant here, because you can't go calculating odds for something that already happened, especially for a random process like evolution. These "odds" are a deliberate misrepresentation. I'll give you an example: Let's say we have a standard deck of 52 cards. I'll pick 4 cards at random, then I'll tell you what I got. For example, I've got an Ace of Spades, Queen of Hearts, 2 of Hearts and 5 of Diamonds (in this specific order). The odds of this happening are: 1/52 * 1/51 * 1/50 * 1/49 = 1.53907717 × 10^(-7) (extremely unlikely). Now, would you say you don't believe that, because the probability is so small? What if I showed you the cards - would you say it was more probable that I cheated? What if I said it was 4 aces in a specific order (the probability would be exactly the same, but it's a nice example of people giving less probability to a specific pattern. Like humans arising by chance (because we value us more than other animals, just like we value 4 aces more than some "random" combination of cards))? The way they calculate this probability (I think you're referring to a single protein that is present in the DNA arising by chance), is that they take all the atoms in the given protein, and calculate the probability of each of them being put in the right place at random. Which is not the case at all, it's not a totally random process, it's a specific process, that leads to the creation of a protein. By the logic they calculate it, any small pebble you pick up is practically impossible, because the atoms in it are in a specific arrangement. But you wouldn't say it was impossible for it to come about by natural processes, and that someone must have carved it. Whew, that was a long write, I hope I made my point clear. smile P.S.: I know what intelligent design is about. I know what this "theory" (it doesn't even qualify as a scientific theory, since it's not testable) states. I know what irreducible complexity is about, what are the arguments for it, and I know what the arguments against it are. I've read up on all this stuff, not from a book, but from articles and such. Believe me, when I tell you, I know all about this stuff. It's one of my favourite topics. I think it's more like my marble metaphor. If I sent a post and said it randomly came out that way, you wouldn't believe me. If I said I typed the post, then you wouldn't dispute my existence just because you couldn't see me. It's harder to dispute evolution when someone comes from a position that a Creator directed it (like if I were to make the marbles hit the correct keys instead of just randomly spilling them over the keyboard). It still makes more sense for the Lord to be directly behind it in my opinion though. And I think I caught the gist of it, but if I misinterpreted your post, let me know. ^_^ One of the many sites that exist about the odds: http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/unexplai.htmPS: It's still not fair to slam a book unless you've at least read it, read the back cover, or read of it. And I know what you mean, it's one of my favorite topics too. I just stink at debating it. XP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:28 pm
The post I wrote is addressing exactly these examples. The way they calculate these probabilities are wrong. Aside from the fact, that calculating the probability of something, which has already happened is a bit silly (it was 100%, obviously), for example they are assuming amino acids (which are mentioned on this page), were supposedly formed completely at random (each atom was placed randomly). But this is just not how chemistry (or physics) works. You don't make aspirin by putting some carbon, hydrogen and oxygen in a bottle and shaking it, hoping it would just randomly arrange itself. There are rules and it's a specific process. Same for amino acids, DNA and such. No one is assuming they just randomly popped up. It was a specific (though not yet fully known) process. The marbles on keyboard analogy is wrong just because of that. It was the process of me typing that made the message happen, it wasn't random. Just as natural processes (though containing an element of randomness), are not fully random. Now to address something I think you are doing here. You are assigning value to our existence (which is understandable), but that value does not make our existence more improbable. I illustrated that with the 4 Aces. 4 aces are no more probable than any other combination of cards, but because we assign value to this specific combination, most people would be more reluctant to believe I pulled 4 aces out of the deck, than if I said it was some other, non-valuable combination of cards. Just to quickly address the first paragraph on the linked page, about the solar system. The planets are expected to be roughly in a plane, because the planets were formed from a disk of dust. Pluto is actually an oddity, perhaps because it collided with some external asteroid / comet, which tilted its orbit. The solar system was chaotic at the beginning, but it stabilized. The planets didn't just zoom out / pop up from somewhere else and arranged themselves like this. Oh and in future, I'd rather you presented me with one argument at a time (it's actually a common creationist debate tactic to just spew out so many arguments, that the opponent isn't able to address them all), because I don't like addressing multiple at once, since it all gets cluttered up and less readable razz From our stand-point, we think we're lucky. But if we didn't get lucky, we wouldn't be talking about it, now would we? smile I hope you understand more clearly, why the "odds" argument doesn't hold up. I understand this stuff can be a bit counter-intuitive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:00 pm
Artto The post I wrote is addressing exactly these examples. The way they calculate these probabilities are wrong. Aside from the fact, that calculating the probability of something, which has already happened is a bit silly (it was 100%, obviously), for example they are assuming amino acids (which are mentioned on this page), were supposedly formed completely at random (each atom was placed randomly). But this is just not how chemistry (or physics) works. You don't make aspirin by putting some carbon, hydrogen and oxygen in a bottle and shaking it, hoping it would just randomly arrange itself. There are rules and it's a specific process. Same for amino acids, DNA and such. No one is assuming they just randomly popped up. It was a specific (though not yet fully known) process. The marbles on keyboard analogy is wrong just because of that. It was the process of me typing that made the message happen, it wasn't random. Just as natural processes (though containing an element of randomness), are not fully random. Now to address something I think you are doing here. You are assigning value to our existence (which is understandable), but that value does not make our existence more improbable. I illustrated that with the 4 Aces. 4 aces are no more probable than any other combination of cards, but because we assign value to this specific combination, most people would be more reluctant to believe I pulled 4 aces out of the deck, than if I said it was some other, non-valuable combination of cards. Just to quickly address the first paragraph on the linked page, about the solar system. The planets are expected to be roughly in a plane, because the planets were formed from a disk of dust. Pluto is actually an oddity, perhaps because it collided with some external asteroid / comet, which tilted its orbit. The solar system was chaotic at the beginning, but it stabilized. The planets didn't just zoom out / pop up from somewhere else and arranged themselves like this. Oh and in future, I'd rather you presented me with one argument at a time (it's actually a common creationist debate tactic to just spew out so many arguments, that the opponent isn't able to address them all), because I don't like addressing multiple at once, since it all gets cluttered up and less readable razz From our stand-point, we think we're lucky. But if we didn't get lucky, we wouldn't be talking about it, now would we? smile I hope you understand more clearly, why the "odds" argument doesn't hold up. I understand this stuff can be a bit counter-intuitive. These are the odds I was looking for: http://www.mankinds-last-hope.org/probabilityofearth.htmlThey still haven't found that process though. If they don't know the process, then why isn't it random? I guess I am. So how would I argue from a view where we don't have value? As long as I believe we're all here for a reason rather then through unknown processes, I'm not sure I can. They didn't have to stabilize as they were, and if they hadn't, we wouldn't be here. I wasn't using a tactic on purpose. XP Actually, if God hadn't wanted us we wouldn't be here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
