What will you be doing

World ends in like 16 days. What will you nerds be doing? Playing crossfire?
«1345

Comments

  • vznisgod wrote: »
    World ends in like 16 days. What will you nerds be doing? Playing crossfire?

    nah i'm a doomsday prepper.
  • vznisgod wrote: »
    World ends in like 16 days. What will you nerds be doing? Playing crossfire?

    Yes I probably will. And in 17 days, and 18, and 19...
  • Ugh, lies, lies everywhere. Says world ends in 2008 or something like that, didn't end.
  • i will be at church getting ready for the rapture, then i will head to my bunker
  • They have been saying the world will end for thousands of years.Truth is no one really knows except god. (Depends on your religious views)
  • Godz_Demon wrote: »
    They have been saying the world will end for thousands of years.Truth is no one really knows except god. (Depends on your religious views)

    >God doesn't exist
    >World isn't ending
    >Could care less what you nerds do
    >Probably smoke and chill like usual
  • vznisgod wrote: »
    >God doesn't exist
    >World isn't ending
    >Could care less what you nerds do
    >Probably smoke and chill like usual

    god does exist you dimwit
  • vznisgod wrote: »
    >God doesn't exist
    >World isn't ending
    >Could care less what you nerds do
    >Probably smoke and chill like usual

    Dude... He said "depends on your religious views."
  • Dude... He said "depends on your religious views."

    I know. My religious views is to not believe in him.
  • watch how simple it is to prove god exist,

    1) nothing can move itself

    2) if every object in motion had a mover, than the first object in motion needed a mover

    3) this first mover is the unmoved mover, called GOD
  • watch how simple it is to prove god exist,

    1) nothing can move itself

    2) if every object in motion had a mover, than the first object in motion needed a mover

    3) this first mover is the unmoved mover, called GOD

    I'm not even going to argue with you. I could care less if you think god exists. I don't.
  • Pretty sure this should be in "Off Topic." Maybe?
  • pretty sure this should be in "off topic." maybe?

    no. Im finding out how many sweaty nerds will be playing cf.
  • vznisgod wrote: »
    I'm not even going to argue with you. I could care less if you think god exists. I don't.

    you can't argue with me because i am right
  • you can't argue with me because i am right

    If god exists then why isn't there a cure for cancer.


    Athiests:1
    Religiousf4gs:0
  • vznisgod wrote: »
    If god exists then why isn't there a cure for cancer.


    Athiests:1
    Religiousf4gs:0

    why would god offer a cure?
  • vznisgod wrote: »
    no. Im finding out how many sweaty nerds will be playing cf.

    What about the ones who don't sweat? You don't care about them? Prejudiced much?
  • I might as well get some popcorn since this fight might not end.
  • Day after I get paid? Friday night....


    Where do you think ill be? Ill be getting as hammered as possible in as short a time as possible in the nearest nightclub to my location
  • I HATE PEOPLE THAT DONT SWEAT.

    They are weird.
  • I will be watching at disappointed people that dropped everything because they think the world is going to end.
  • TigerJr wrote: »
    I will be watching at disappointed people that dropped everything because they think the world is going to end.

    Honestly, i'm going to smoke a bowl and watch all the mass suicides on the news.
  • vznisgod wrote: »
    I HATE PEOPLE THAT DONT SWEAT.

    They are weird.

    This ^... So true lol.
  • damn i just paid 12000 for next semester the other week........what a waste
  • damn i just paid 12000 for next semester the other week........what a waste

    Refund. Buy meth. OD. EZ$$
  • there are four possible answers to why we have something rather than nothing at all:

    1. Reality is an illusion.
    2. Reality is/was self-created.
    3. Reality is self-existent (eternal).
    4. Reality was created by something that is self-existent.

    So, which is the most plausible solution? Let’s begin with reality being simply an illusion, which is what a number of Eastern religions believe. This option was ruled out centuries ago by the philosopher Rene Descartes who is famous for the statement, “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes, a mathematician, argued that if he is thinking, then he must “be.” In other words, “I think, therefore I am not an illusion.” Illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument. So the possibility of reality being an illusion is eliminated.

    Next is the option of reality being self-created. When we study philosophy, we learn of “analytically false” statements, which means they are false by definition. The possibility of reality being self-created is one of those types of statements for the simple reason that something cannot be prior to itself. If you created yourself, then you must have existed prior to you creating yourself, but that simply cannot be. In evolution this is sometimes referred to as “spontaneous generation” —something coming from nothing—a position that few, if any, reasonable people hold to anymore simply because you cannot get something from nothing. Even the atheist David Hume said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” Since something cannot come from nothing, the alternative of reality being self-created is ruled out.

    Now we are left with only two choices—an eternal reality or reality being created by something that is eternal: an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. The 18th-century theologian Jonathan Edwards summed up this crossroads:

    • Something exists.
    • Nothing cannot create something.
    • Therefore, a necessary and eternal “something” exists.

    Notice that we must go back to an eternal “something.” The atheist who derides the believer in God for believing in an eternal Creator must turn around and embrace an eternal universe; it is the only other door he can choose. But the question now is, where does the evidence lead? Does the evidence point to matter before mind or mind before matter?

    To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points away from an eternal universe and toward an eternal Creator. From a scientific standpoint, honest scientists admit the universe had a beginning, and whatever has a beginning is not eternal. In other words, whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning is underscored by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900s, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. All prove the universe is not eternal.

    Further, the laws that surround causation speak against the universe being the ultimate cause of all we know for this simple fact: an effect must resemble its cause. This being true, no atheist can explain how an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe accidentally created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Such a thing, from a causation standpoint, completely refutes the idea of a natural universe birthing everything that exists. So in the end, the concept of an eternal universe is eliminated.

    Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up where we have now come to: “It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.” The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of statements:

    • Something exists.
    • You do not get something from nothing.
    • Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
    • The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.
    • Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.
    • Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.

    Former atheist Lee Strobel, who arrived at this end result many years ago, has commented, “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God's existence … In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.”

    But the next question we must tackle is this: if an eternal Creator exists (and we have shown that He does), what kind of Creator is He? Can we infer things about Him from what He created? In other words, can we understand the cause by its effects? The answer to this is yes, we can, with the following characteristics being surmised:

    • He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
    • He must be powerful (exceedingly).
    • He must be eternal (self-existent).
    • He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
    • He must be timeless and changeless (He created time).
    • He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
    • He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality).
    • He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
    • He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
    • He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.
    • He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.
    • He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).
    • He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).

    These things being true, we now ask if any religion in the world describes such a Creator. The answer to this is yes: the God of the Bible fits this profile perfectly. He is supernatural (Genesis 1:1), powerful (Jeremiah 32:17), eternal (Psalm 90:2), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7), timeless/changeless (Malachi 3:6), immaterial (John 5:24), personal (Genesis 3:9), necessary (Colossians 1:17), infinite/singular (Jeremiah 23:24, Deuteronomy 6:4), diverse yet with unity (Matthew 28:19), intelligent (Psalm 147:4-5), purposeful (Jeremiah 29:11), moral (Daniel 9:14), and caring (1 Peter 5:6-7).

    One last subject to address on the matter of God’s existence is the matter of how justifiable the atheist’s position actually is. Since the atheist asserts the believer’s position is unsound, it is only reasonable to turn the question around and aim it squarely back at him. The first thing to understand is that the claim the atheist makes—“no god,” which is what “atheist” means—is an untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint. As legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler says, “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.” For example, someone may claim that a red eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist. The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion. But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every place at once to ensure he has not missed a red eagle somewhere and at some time, which is impossible to do. This is why intellectually honest atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist.