You breathe living things as well.

Hey now, I don't poke holes in your mockeries.

Hey now, I don't poke holes in your mockeries

And yet, if you were to find holes in my mockeries I would deserve it.

That would be a pretty big IF...


And I did not poke holes, I only exposed an already existing one.

  

You breathe living things? I breathe air.

I'll pay that, got a laugh out of me!

A concept. What is a concept if there is no intelligence to conceive?

Is love a concept? can love have existed before the universe was borne? can love have ever not existed or is it simply a 'state' of existance that just 'is' ?

To me this kind of discussion is little more than mental masturbation.

You say this when you are so clearly a fan of PC games? Egad, sir! You denigrate an act that is most wholesome for prostate health, and probably also fundamental for female well-being in ways I do not fully understand.

p.s. I challenge any of you to try linking talk of orgasms to game mechanics!

p.s. I challenge any of you to try linking talk of orgasms to game mechanics!

I dunno...

What that transport ship heads straight into the planet to deposit its little troopers like that...

Is love a concept? can love have existed before the universe was borne? can love have ever not existed or is it simply a 'state' of existance that just 'is' ?

1john 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

1john 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.


Is God a concept? Can God have existed before the universe was borne? Can God have ever not existed or is God simply a 'state' of existence that just 'is'?

Well by all statements of theology God had to have existed before the universe did, or else how would have he created everything. Lets go off on a tangent here, presuming that God exists in harmony with logic(oh man im wrong already) and scientific understanding. He would have had to be able to exist in nothing, compeltly nothing no matter not anything, which would mean that he would be sorta like an anti-matter, which also means he exploded when he came into to contact with matter(the universe) or became integrated into it(unlikely).

The big question here is can God explode?

Is God a concept? Can God have existed before the universe was borne? Can God have ever not existed or is God simply a 'state' of existence that just 'is'?

Ah you found the truth behind my words!

Well by all statements of theology God had to have existed before the universe did, or else how would have he created everything. Lets go off on a tangent here, presuming that God exists in harmony with logic(oh man im wrong already) and scientific understanding. He would have had to be able to exist in nothing, compeltly nothing no matter not anything, which would mean that he would be sorta like an anti-matter, which also means he exploded when he came into to contact with matter(the universe) or became integrated into it(unlikely).

Befor and after are concepts one might wish to let go of to understand God.

we are "creatures of time" ergo - God is not.

Does the word 'forever' have any meaning without time?

TGE, I'm no theist, much less a monotheist, but I have to scoff your scoff. AFAIK, if you want to play formal cosmology games, theists are roughly as likely as atheists to win a given bout. To top that, no small number of polytheists, pantheists, animimsts, etc., think the one-god and no-god crowds are seriously missing the big picture.

Are there any tangents in this thread?
I think not, since the thread is itself the tangent.

Your thinking that God existed in nothing is misleading.
Since energy can be neither created nor destroyed, then God would have existed (and does exist) as energy. God and energy are the only eternals, and I doubt they can be considered as totally separate.

And while the energy may not have existed in dimensional space, it still existed (and exists).

Part of that energy would have to be converted into matter (energy can be converted to matter, and matter to energy) by giving the non-dimensional waveform energy a particle nature as well, in order to create the physical universe.

The act of converting energy into matter could have resulted in what we term, the Big Bang.

TGE, I'm no theist, much less a monotheist, but I have to scoff your scoff. AFAIK, if you want to play formal cosmology games, theists are roughly as likely as atheists to win a given bout. To top that, no small number of polytheists, pantheists, animimsts, etc., think the one-god and no-god crowds are seriously missing the big picture.

What the..??? ok i'm not any kind of 'ist' i don't keep track of what all the various 'ist's' are doing. i just have my own opinion.

Since energy can be neither created nor destroyed, then God would have existed (and does exist) as energy.

If you believe God is energy then you must also believe God is bound by time, because energy does not exist without time.

because energy does not exist without time.

How so?

Energy is the capacity for doing work.

Doing the actual work may require time, but the capacity itself would not rely on time.

"How does a law rule without a human to interpret and/or execute it?"

First we must define the word "law". Does it have to be written to be a law or to be understood?

"a rule or manner of behavior that is instinctive"

Why would any of us believe for an instant that in order to interpret and or execute a law we have to be human? The Animal kingdom is inundated by laws understood by its inhabitants. From a Pride of Lions to a Herd of Elephants. We struggle to understand them ourselves but it is natural for them. A pack of wild dogs can not write laws or interpret written law, but I guarantee if you break one of their instinctive laws, they will execute their form of justice.

So in my opinion your answer is simple.... The Animal Kingdom is how a law rules without human interpretation or execution.   

Assuming we are talking about legal laws rather than scientific laws...

A law cannot "rule" by itself, but its existence causes humans to rule themselves. A law does nothing but state what the society that generated it finds permissible or prohibited. The existence of a law only compels people to obey it in proportion to their fear of the response of society.

The phrase "the rule of law" however does not refer to the ability of law to somehow rule by itself, but to the willingness of society to organize itself to respect the prohibitions of the law. If there is "rule of law" touted in a society, this is a signal to the members of that society that response to transgressions will certain and immutable.

The use of the phrase "the rule of law" is also supposed to refer to the idea that as well as being rigorously upheld, the laws are created in a fair and reasoned manner, and are logically consistent with each other and the social values of the society that made them. This separation of the law from temporary emotional response to transgression is also supposed to increase the likelihood that the law will be obeyed, as the response to the transgression is unlikely to be mitigated by the circumstances of the transgression.

The use of the phrase "the rule of law" is also supposed to refer to the idea that as well as being rigorously upheld, the laws are created in a fair and reasoned manner, and are logically consistent with each other and the social values of the society that made them.

But are laws in themselves moral? Is the death penalty not immoral, regardless of what the crime entailed? Understandably, there needs to be a set of laws in place to provide consistency in the chaos and to keep our emotions from ruling our actions.
My question in all of this would be, would we need rules of law if we lived our lives upholding true morality? To me the basic moral foundation would be simply the old "do unto others" saying. You shouldn't steal, you shouldn't lie, and you shouldn't kill. These three alone, if lived by, would raise us to a level as a civilization far higher than we already are.