Heads up!!! In order to keep my reply length a little shorter I only quoted the underlined topic that preceded the paragraph that I was responding to. i am not trying to qoute your words, just only letting you know what section my thoughts derived from.
Quote Originally Posted by Ocelot

my theory on this: (alcohol induced posting ftw)

God? who is God?
First off, very very entertaining thread. A fun read and kinda make me wish I saw the rum induced trance that produced this.

I guess I'd like to comment on some things that I find interesting in your post.

The first section you mention God in eternity as a catalyst. Would you not expect for something to be catalyzed that said catalyst must be acting with intention? No matter how the chain runs, a catalyst always has an originator of intent. that is the whole point of something being spun into action/reaction, but my point is that it doesn't denote an energy, it denotes a conscience, something with thoughts, desires, intent, and a will.

I like the reference to a Mobius strip, but that is a little of a misuse of the evidence as the religious characteristics of God are demonstrated. In the monotheistic faiths you listed, time as we know it will cease to exist and certain things/people will transcend into eternity. so if we are to be consistent in discussing a transcendent God then we have to take note that by definition this God has specifically declared an end and a beginning to time as we know it. Therefor His obsoletion as stated in your POV would be impossible as that band is no longer a connected strip. It is a segment as time as we know it is not eternal, but is somehow on a different path than the eternal for the very purpose of having a definite beginning (creation) and a definite end (transcendency into the eternal). But this is a paradox in that we cannot understand because we have very little idea what is on the other side of the fence.

wait... what?
The human mind has never been simple. Our understanding and our knowledge of things has been on a different plane, but it is very clear through studying the egyptian, roman, greek, and chinese cultures, that ancient cultures had forms of technology, that we often are surprised to see. Low tech computing machines which could calculate date, time, distance and probability, the abacus could perform advanced algebra and calculus, potential electrical lighting systems, and then the mysteries of these cultures all lead us to the conclusion that they were not as under developed as we would believe based on our own presuppositions on what it means to be ancient.

Also, in the monotheistic faiths. We don't see God as a force or idea. They describe God as a talking, audible, sometimes physical, but definitely not a potential figment of an immagination. So based on their discriptions we cannot assume that their faith was placed on the indescribable, but on something that was much more powerful (not necessarily physical) and transcended their understandings.

so... are they really wrong or misled?
Theory of conservation of energy says that we do not "create" energy. We can harness it, alter it as you said, but the amount stays the same and does not change. With this said, we can reasonably look back billions of years and understand that we cannot fathom the amount of energy that spawned this universe, and with that spawning would come some sort of catalyst. Remember what we know about catalysts. They have origin and the catalyst that would have started all of this would have to be emensely powerful and transcendent beyond the timeline of our universe which we can also assume it will out last our universe as well. Which means that even though it is not possible to know right now, we can make a reasonable assumption that an eternity does exist. Or at least a timeline that is greater than all of the energy and mass that we have been unable to understand and know in our brief existence.

so what the eff are you man? a scientist/scientologist or Christian/Muslim/Buddhist? you some kind of atheist?
physiology had nothing to do with being created in the "image" of something. I can make a clay mold of myself (not really, but if I was skilled enough to do so) and that mold could be my image but not even alive. In the image of does not mean we were clones and should posses all of his stregths and knowledge. Just that somehow we have something in common with him. It may not be physical at all. it could be in spirit or in conscience. I am not sure if lifting rocks has anything to with it.

I mostly agree with your statements about science and religion. I hate that more christian believers feel the need to ignore our God given ability to look around our world and learn about it. to study it and come away knowing Him better than before. We can also use science to check our understanding of scripture and our motives with reasoning, but unfortunately too many of us don't do that.

I believe solely in myself. I believe in facts and am open to suggestion and theory, open to beliefs and disbeliefs.
please elaborate.


vampires, werewolves, demons, ghosts?
not dracula, not the wolfman, yes exorsist, and yes casper.