For the sake of the argument let us all assume that God is an almighty, all-knowing, all seeing entity who is removed from the system, the system being the universe, because if he existed in the universe he couldn't have created it, right? That question was rhetorical, that means you should not answer it. To come to the question of whether the proposed idea which is yet to be proposed we need to clarify a few points: we will consider the "God" to be the christian interpretation of God and none other, we will assume that he exists beyond the universe, we will assume that by this point you have lost interest in reading the OP and we will assume that the bible is a factual account of the creation of the universe and also the days there after. Did God Create the Universe in Six Days? If all that is considered to be fact we can then conclude that this discussion is rather senseless, but for those who are still reading we shall consider whether it would be possible for the universe to have been created in six days. Ofcourse the bible speaks nothing of a universe being created, but we shall consider that the universe is a construct of utmost importance and relevance to the system at hand. Most importantly, what we should consider is that the God we speak of is the Christian God. If all that was taken to be fact then we can consider whether God actually created the universe in a single day as it is stated in the Quran. And for everyone to actually be Gary Coleman look-alikes we need more jaw-breakers in the punchbowl. Then and only then can the sharks fly and eat what's left of the O-zone layer before the meat crust devours the seas. Is your brain melting? Of course it is. This is all a test. Do not respond to any of this. The test is to see who the posters are who make up assumptions on the OP before even reading said OP and then responding to the OP with the assumptions they created before even considering the OP's ideas. If you understand that this is a test then do not reply. This does belong in the philosophy section because it is testing the moral integrity of the ignoramus. As I said, we need to question whether God even created the universe. He literally couldn't have created it. It's science. What's you're point of view; did he create the universe in seven days?
'With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.' - Saint Peter 'Time is relative.' - Captain Obvious
No. You could go on about a day not meaning a day but the order of creation in genesis is still incorrect.
An omnipotent God can create the universe in our time, 1 second to say 100 years. etc his choices aren't his limits as he has no limits. Further on the time comprehended by our ability is never the same as what God sees from his omnipresent attributes as we are talking of a christian God. Why couldn't God create science ? 1.He is omnipotent as you said in your argument 2. his way of allowing us to understand this world at a more precise level- inferring purpose and plan to creations
Obviously anything is possible. If you have the ability to create life, then I doubt time is even an issue. a "day" is something man created. If God does exist and he did create it in 7 days, time is obsolete
NO. Think of it this way. A "day" is 24 hours, or the amount of time it takes for earth to rotate around the sun. In order for a day to exist, the earth would have to exist. For earth to rotate, requires the moon. In order for the earth and moon to exist, the Sun would already have to exist. In order for the sun to exist, the universe would already have to exist.
Your all completely missing the point of the thread, and I didn't even want to respond to any of this, but ^^this guy seems to be using some insanely convuluted logic. By your line of thinking we woud need to invent fingers to start counting, right? Time has nothing to do with the universe ... I really don't even know how to put it in words...
Whats your point with this thread? Can anyone really know this? God could have created the universe in one second
You all just proved my point. And I quote: "This is all a test. Do not respond to any of this. The test is to see who the posters are who make up assumptions on the OP before even reading said OP and then responding to the OP with the assumptions they created before even considering the OP's ideas. If you understand that this is a test then do not reply." How can we truly have any arguments if none of you ever take the time to consider what the other person is saying? You all want to talk about enlightenment and how you are all open-minded, but you really aren't. Now the real question would be; are you enlightened? How long does it really take to read something your interested in? Do you comment on things you aren't interested in? Are your opinions more valid than the next persons, simply because you feel they are? I can't justify what I'm doing, and I know this might be against the forum regulations, but I will gladly walk away from these forums if no-one even cares about standards and respecting others views on this site anymore. I joined this site thinking people were intelligent and open-minded and could really respect others view-points and that as a whole we could enlighten one another, but today I see how naive and deluded I was. I thought we could come together as a community to share our ideals and beliefs and to have them questioned in the hope that they could be strenthened, but now I see how sorely mistaken I was. At this moment I feel a sense of regret for joining this site, because no-one seems to follow any etiquette. We only intend to feed the problem; to feed our ego's. You know what forget it. I'm out! End rant! Close thread.
And yet YOU assumed that the responders were assuming about you without reading the whole post. No wonder you are a lonely stoner.
Who said anyone assumed anything about me? That just proves that you didn't even read anything I posted. You just skimmed through some of it, came up with what you thought was a smart remark and then posted it; yet again proving my point. I was talking about the opening post and not me, but if you read what I posted, you would've known that.
O'Reily? Read it twice before the previous post. Quote - The test is to see who the posters are who make up assumptions on the OP before even reading said OP and then responding to the OP with the assumptions they created before even considering the OP's ideas. I think this still applies - And yet YOU assumed that the responders were assuming about you without reading the whole post.
What part of "Who said anyone assumed anything about me?" don't you understand? I was talking about the OP - opening post - and not me - opening poster - that was being assumed about. If you read and comprehended what I posted then you would have been able to make the distinction. But seeing as you weren't able to make the distinction I can conclude that you were merely skimming over my point, which in essence proves my overall point - that being that posters skim over what others post, that is if they even attempt to read what others posted.
I hope that made the distinction clear. I was not specifically refering to me, as me can be replaced with any pronoun that applies, but the point remains the same, your argumebt is flawed in that it assumes I was talking about me instead of the post I made. OP not OP. Noun not pronoun. I hope that broke it down for you. Now will you please admit that you are wrong?