# Steven Hawking



## bullethead (May 16, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2...king-interview-there-is-no-heaven?INTCMP=SRCH


----------



## Jranger (May 16, 2011)

bullethead said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2...king-interview-there-is-no-heaven?INTCMP=SRCH



Brilliant man no doubt. I find it hard for some of those minds to dismiss the impossibilities of any existence without some sort of primer or supernatural intervention. Everything has to start somewhere. Whether we have the story right or not I do not believe that the universe just spontaneously came into existence where there was nothing before.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 16, 2011)

I suppose he will find out whether he's right soon enough, right?


----------



## bullethead (May 16, 2011)

Jranger said:


> Brilliant man no doubt. I find it hard for some of those minds to dismiss the impossibilities of any existence without some sort of primer or supernatural intervention. Everything has to start somewhere. Whether we have the story right or not I do not believe that the universe just spontaneously came into existence where there was nothing before.



It is mind boggling but there is really no difference that a universe started from absolutely nothing or that a supreme being started out the same way.


----------



## bullethead (May 16, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I suppose he will find out whether he's right soon enough, right?



He sure will. And like so many others despite promises otherwise, none have been able to confirm an afterlife.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 16, 2011)

"where there WAS nothing" 

To say there was, implies the opposite of nothing. It's more like there just wasn't. (PERIOD) Who says there ever was (or wasn't - yeah, double negative) nothing. If that's the case though, then god just sat around talking to himself? Or was (or wasn't) he not either?


----------



## HawgJawl (May 16, 2011)

I stated this before on another thread but I believe it is appropriate here.  Other than a magician creating the illusion of "something" being poofed into existence from "nothing", we have no other example of this concept in our everyday lives or in nature.  Every object we have or can create comes from some other pre-existing matter.  So, why do we feel compelled to apply this strange concept to the cosmos?


----------



## bullethead (May 16, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> I stated this before on another thread but I believe it is appropriate here.  Other than a magician creating the illusion of "something" being poofed into existence from "nothing", we have no other example of this concept in our everyday lives or in nature.  Every object we have or can create comes from some other pre-existing matter.  So, why do we feel compelled to apply this strange concept to the cosmos?



Does it all refer back to ONE pre-existing matter,"god"? If nothing had to come from something, something has to come from something so you cannot tell me "god" always was. Like the Cosmos god had to be created and I'm leaning towards man being responsible for that one.


----------



## HawgJawl (May 16, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Does it all refer back to ONE pre-existing matter,"god"? If nothing had to come from something, something has to come from something so you cannot tell me "god" always was. Like the Cosmos god had to be created and I'm leaning towards man being responsible for that one.



I'm referring to all matter (basic elements) in the cosmos always existing in one form or another.


----------



## bullethead (May 16, 2011)

OK Gotcha. I am making a statement to anyone that says the cosmos, universe, everything..the big bang... has GOT to have started from something. Well something also has to come from something by that line of thinking. If it is said god just always was, then it is not outside the the box to think the cosmos always was also. If the cosmos HAD to been created, then the creator HAD to have been created. if it is good for one it is good for the other.


----------



## HawgJawl (May 16, 2011)

bullethead said:


> OK Gotcha. I am making a statement to anyone that says the cosmos, universe, everything..the big bang... has GOT to have started from something. Well something also has to come from something by that line of thinking. If it is said god just always was, then it is not outside the the box to think the cosmos always was also. If the cosmos HAD to been created, then the creator HAD to have been created. if it is good for one it is good for the other.



I understand.  My question is WHY does anyone think that the cosmos HAD to be created from nothing when we have no other example of that concept anywhere else in nature.


----------



## bullethead (May 16, 2011)

True.

I am along the same thought process with you. If something HAS to be created because it cannot just always be, then the same applies to the creator. He, she, it just cannot always have been.


----------



## HawgJawl (May 16, 2011)

CREATE
to bring into being, generate, father, hatch, make, originate, parent, procreate, produce, sire, spawn, etc.

To create does not necessarily require "poofing" into existence all the materials utilized to bring the new thing into existence.  Every object man creates comes from something pre-existing.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 16, 2011)

because it's nearly equally hard to think that it always just was. Probably because that's not really an explanation, or a sufficient explanation at least.



HawgJawl said:


> I understand.  My question is WHY does anyone think that the cosmos HAD to be created from nothing when we have no other example of that concept anywhere else in nature.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 16, 2011)

bullethead said:


> He sure will. And like so many others despite promises otherwise, none have been able to confirm an afterlife.



Carry around much disdain for religion?  Must be a very heavy burden.


----------



## bullethead (May 16, 2011)

Not even a flake on my shoulders...

But to get to the point I made which had nothing to do with religious disdain.... lots of people have promised to try to contact loved ones once they pass on. I know of no one that has been contacted and I know of no one that has come back to tell of an afterlife.


----------



## stringmusic (May 16, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Not even a flake on my shoulders...
> 
> But to get to the point I made which had nothing to do with religious disdain.... lots of people have promised to try to contact loved ones once they pass on. I know of no one that has been contacted and I know of no one that has come back to tell of an afterlife.



So because dead people dont talk, your conclusion is there is no afterlife?


----------



## Thanatos (May 16, 2011)

I have read several of his books. I have learned a good bit of what I could understand out of them...lol.

BUT! Hawkins is a scientist. I very smart scientist, but I am afraid that he has no use for "trivial" religious thought. In order to obtain the knowledge he has in his fields of work require much dedication and sacrifice. I will not be swayed by a scientist who has spent little or no time dissecting religion. I am glad that he didn't though. If he had we would not have some of the great findings he uncovered.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 17, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> So because dead people dont talk, your conclusion is there is no afterlife?



No proof, no evidence.. so, yes. My great grandad claimed to have seen god after a heart attack.. I have only one memory of him, and I love him.. but I dream too. I can elaborate all day long...


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> So because dead people dont talk, your conclusion is there is no afterlife?



That and a thousand other examples.


----------



## HawgJawl (May 17, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> because it's nearly equally hard to think that it always just was. Probably because that's not really an explanation, or a sufficient explanation at least.



To me it just seems like the default should be that "matter" has alway existed because everything that we learn and know in our lifetime about objects is that the matter that makes up those objects existed before we existed.  We have NO examples of objects or matter poofing into existence.  Everything we know points to matter always existing in one form or another.  In order to consider a "beginning" to matter, we must invent the concept of matter poofing into existence before we can even begin to try to figure out exactly how and when that happened.


----------



## Jranger (May 17, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> To me it just seems like the default should be that "matter" has alway existed because everything that we learn and know in our lifetime about objects is that the matter that makes up those objects existed before we existed.  We have NO examples of objects or matter poofing into existence.  Everything we know points to matter always existing in one form or another.  In order to consider a "beginning" to matter, we must invent the concept of matter poofing into existence before we can even begin to try to figure out exactly how and when that happened.



The only reason people believe that matter just came to be is based on scientific theory relating to the Big Bang. I don't dismiss that this isn't true at least partially, but I fully believe that something lit the fuse and provided the components enabling the bang. I believe they are close to proving the God particle at CERN. Matter where none existed before.


----------



## TheBishop (May 17, 2011)

Greatest quote of the entire article.



> We should seek the greatest value of our action.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 17, 2011)

Why?

What's the point?  He didn't really clarify that.  Just for personal ROI?

What determines great value or is it person specific?


----------



## TheBishop (May 17, 2011)

I think value would be determined by the individual.  By doing so I think, it encourages prosperity for all.  If we all seek greatness and all determine greatness differently our achievements could and do benefit others.  Take him for example, no one compels him to strive as he does but himself.  In doing so, he gives us the knowledge he inspired for, benefiting all.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 17, 2011)

Problem is that if we all seek what is "greatness" in our own minds, we leave ourselves open to the lunatics that roam among us.

I would venture to say that Hitler was seeking ultimate "greatness" in his mind (just using that as an extreme example).

If there is no central understanding of what "greatness" is then, no, I wouldn't agree that it would ultimately be beneficial for all.  

Perhaps in a utopia which is great in theory but can't be worked out in practice.  Why can't it be worked out?  Because, individual understanding of greatness end up competing....not working together for prosperity.

That, in my mind is what's wrong with his statement.  It's utopian in nature.


----------



## TheBishop (May 17, 2011)

We'll always, I repeat always, have lunatics no matter who defines greatness.  There will never be a central understanding for anything let alone greatness.  People cannot agree on the simplest of things let alone something as complicated as defining what constitutes greatness.  Look at religion, how many different groups claim to have it right? How about Ronald Reagan I find him to be a great president I'm sure some would disagree.  The point is greatness will always be defined by the individual, but it certainly doesn't mean that individuals won't agree what defines greatness.


----------



## HawgJawl (May 17, 2011)

Jranger said:


> The only reason people believe that matter just came to be is based on scientific theory relating to the Big Bang. I don't dismiss that this isn't true at least partially, but I fully believe that something lit the fuse and provided the components enabling the bang. I believe they are close to proving the God particle at CERN. Matter where none existed before.



The Big Bang Theory does not require that "matter" did not exist prior.  The Big Bang/Big Crush Theory is based upon "matter" in the cosmos being drawn together so tightly that it eventually explodes.  Ultimately, the expansion slows to a stop and begins drawing back together, repeating the process.  The "matter" may change in the process but it always existed in some form.

I think the concept of a time when "nothing" existed comes from a misinterpretation of the word "create" in the book of Genesis in the Bible.  The act of creation does not require poofing the elements into existence.  The Bible says that God created man by forming man out of the dust of the earth, not poofing man into existence from nothing.  The Bible likens God to a potter forming clay.  The potter does not create the clay, but forms a new creation out of a pre-existing "matter".


----------



## slightly grayling (May 17, 2011)

Hawking is an egomanic, an all too common trait among my fellow scientists.  The truth is no one knows and both the clergy and the scientist all reach the same end point of not knowing at some point either in the beginning or at death.  Scientist look for the "God Particle" thinking it will link quantum theories together.  They have conducted quantum experiments that have proved the results change when observed.....is God laughing at them?  I don't know, but this is IMO an hornable quest, but why so hostile towards religon?  Ego.....just like theologians who have it all figured out and are ready to condem those with a different opinion.  I am a Christian.....one who is ok not knowing all the answers and having doubts like everyone....so if I live a life as a follower of Christ, or at least striving for that, and there is nothing at the end I'm ok with that.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 17, 2011)

> I think value would be determined by the individual. By doing so I think, it encourages prosperity for all.



But does your last post jive with this?

How can it encourage prosperity for all if all have a different definition and so different end goals?


----------



## TheBishop (May 17, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> But does your last post jive with this?
> 
> How can it encourage prosperity for all if all have a different definition and so different end goals?



It is the essentially the same reasons communism doesn't work and capitalism does. Our society was built by individuals striving for individualistic goals as a result all benefited.  We all define/measure success and greatness differently.


----------



## atlashunter (May 17, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> It is the essentially the same reasons communism doesn't work and capitalism does. Our society was built by individuals striving for individualistic goals as a result all benefited.  We all define/measure success and greatness differently.



His question brought capitalism to mind for me too.



> It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. -Adam Smith


----------



## Huntinfool (May 17, 2011)

...but wouldn't you agree that the self-love Smith talked about is exactly what is killing our once great country right now?



> When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. - Ben Franklin



It was built on individuals striving for individualistic goals....and it's now being destroyed by the very same I would argue.  

Pure capitalism should work the way you described.  But everything cycles outside of a utopia.  Ultimately pure self-interest leads to zero-sum.  Somebody wins and somebody loses.  We cannot all "benefit" when we only work toward our own individual goals.


----------



## JFS (May 17, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> We cannot all "benefit" when we only work toward our own individual goals.




Of course we can.  Wealth is not a zero sum game.


----------



## TheBishop (May 17, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> ...but wouldn't you agree that the self-love Smith talked about is exactly what is killing our once great country right now?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You could not be more wrong.  Whats destroying our country is a combination of a bunch of things.  For one entitlements, which has very little to do with achieving any greatness. Second politicians pandering to this mentality.  Over regulation, and the ever willingness to give government more power.  Statism, progressivism, what ever you want to call it which seeks to destroy the individual for the collective good. I could go on becuase there are tons of things that are drowning liberty in a sea of tyranny. 

Your missing the idea.  When an individual seeks greatness the side affects usually benefit someone else. I cited Hawkins as an example. Eistein, Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, Ect.. These men sought to invent for their own desires, we all benefited.


----------



## atlashunter (May 17, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> ...but wouldn't you agree that the self-love Smith talked about is exactly what is killing our once great country right now?



Not at all. Smith was referring to voluntary exchange in a free market.




Huntinfool said:


> It was built on individuals striving for individualistic goals....and it's now being destroyed by the very same I would argue.



In a sense this is correct. It isn't the self interest that is the determining factor but how that self interest is pursued. The butcher produces a meat product and trades with the baker for bread. The both win by serving each other out of their own self interest under the framework of mutually voluntary trade. Or... the butcher robs the bread from the butcher either by his own threat of violence or by using the police power of the state. He's still pursuing his own self interest but doing it under a different framework that is not compatible with a free market. That destroys society.




Huntinfool said:


> Pure capitalism should work the way you described.  But everything cycles outside of a utopia.  Ultimately pure self-interest leads to zero-sum.  Somebody wins and somebody loses.  We cannot all "benefit" when we only work toward our own individual goals.



When the butcher and baker trade to their mutual benefit who is the loser?


----------



## Huntinfool (May 17, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> You could not be more wrong.



I think you have a macro built on your computer that just posts this phrase when it sees my name.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 17, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> When the butcher and baker trade to their mutual benefit who is the loser?



again....utopian capitalism is perfect.  So is communism.  


Who loses in reality?  The foodstamp recipient who demands a piece of the action for nothing....and holds a majority so they vote themselves the power to steal it legally.

Smith could never have envisioned the state of affairs today.  He assumed that people would actually be willing to work for a living.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 17, 2011)

JFS said:


> Of course we can.  Wealth is not a zero sum game.



especially not to the winner, right?

How did we end up on Capitalism?  Did I do that?


----------



## atlashunter (May 17, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> again....utopian capitalism is perfect.  So is communism.



I disagree. Communism is a system based on theft and denial of individual rights not only in practice but in theory as well. Anyone who says it is a good idea in theory doesn't understand it very well.




Huntinfool said:


> Who loses in reality?  The foodstamp recipient who demands a piece of the action for nothing....and holds a majority so they vote themselves the power to steal it legally.



Oh so the thief loses out. And your problem is?




Huntinfool said:


> Smith could never have envisioned the state of affairs today.  He assumed that people would actually be willing to work for a living.



Think the nobility and bureaucrats of his day worked for a living? The principles are the same now as they were the day he put them to paper. And he wasn't the first to do so.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 17, 2011)

> Oh so the thief loses out. And your problem is?



I don't have a problem with it.  You asked who loses....I told you.


----------



## atlashunter (May 17, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I don't have a problem with it.  You asked who loses....I told you.



Would you agree that prosperity in general is advanced where theft curtailed and discouraged, and lessened where theft is the widespread? Saying that those who prey upon others lose out under a system where individuals retain the right to pursue their own self interest with the product of their labor protected from theft is hardly a rebuttal of what The Bishop was saying.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 17, 2011)

It's not theft if you pass a law that makes it legal, now is it?


----------



## atlashunter (May 17, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> It's not theft if you pass a law that makes it legal, now is it?



Legalized theft is still theft.


----------



## TheBishop (May 17, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I think you have a macro built on your computer that just posts this phrase when it sees my name.



If the shoe fits.....


----------



## TheBishop (May 17, 2011)

That is about the 10th time I have watched that video Atlas and I never get tired of it.


----------



## TheBishop (May 17, 2011)

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/prmggcDVe6w?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/prmggcDVe6w?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

The economic Stephen Hawkins.


----------



## Thanatos (May 17, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> Greatest quote of the entire article.
> 
> "We should seek the greatest value of our action."



Agreed 100%


----------



## Huntinfool (May 18, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Legalized theft is still theft.




Tell that to the IRS.


When the uneducated masses realize they can make theft "legal"....they'll do it.


So, in saying that legalized theft is still theft, are you acknowledging that there is (or should be) some central understanding of "right" and "wrong"?  Where does that understanding come from?


----------



## atlashunter (May 18, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Tell that to the IRS.
> 
> 
> When the uneducated masses realize they can make theft "legal"....they'll do it.



That is no different in principle from saying "Tell Stalin that legalized murder is still murder."

A majority vote does not make an immoral act moral.


----------



## TheBishop (May 18, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Tell that to the IRS.
> 
> 
> When the uneducated masses realize they can make theft "legal"....they'll do it.
> ...



D.O.I



> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,



We are suppose to be a republic not a democracy to prevent such things from happening.  Our forefathers understood the dangers of mob rule.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 18, 2011)

Supposed to be being the operative phrase.  Ask the President what we are.


----------



## TheBishop (May 18, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Supposed to be being the operative phrase.  Ask the President what we are.



He's terrible.  I truely believe he despises what the United States is suppose to be.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 18, 2011)

Then we finally agree on something.


----------



## TheBishop (May 18, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Then we finally agree on something.


----------



## atlashunter (May 18, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> So, in saying that legalized theft is still theft, are you acknowledging that there is (or should be) some central understanding of "right" and "wrong"?  Where does that understanding come from?



It comes from each of us. From our innate sense of right and wrong and from the merits of the moral claims we submit to one another. I wouldn't describe that as central as that suggests a top down approach rather than bottom up.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 18, 2011)

What causes it to be "innate"?  We just collectively agree on what's right and wrong?


I'll refer you to the problem of "legallized" theft.  You and I think it's wrong....clearly others don't.


----------



## HawgJawl (May 18, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> What causes it to be "innate"?  We just collectively agree on what's right and wrong?




Romans 2:14
Even when Gentiles, who do not have God's written law, instinctively follow what the law says, they show that in their hearts they know right from wrong.


----------



## atlashunter (May 18, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> What causes it to be "innate"?  We just collectively agree on what's right and wrong?



Good question for which I don't think there is a simple answer. I don't think it's a matter of collective agreement. It seems nearly every response you offer is somehow collectivist at its core.




Huntinfool said:


> I'll refer you to the problem of "legallized" theft.  You and I think it's wrong....clearly others don't.



Don't forget this part...

"and from the merits of the moral claims we submit to one another."

There are differences in how people weigh and consider moral arguments so it's to be expected they will come to different conclusions. Someone who thinks morality comes from an authoritarian moral law giver on the basis of their power might conclude child murder is moral if directed by that moral law giver. I would disagree because I don't approach morality as simply a matter of the dictates of some authoritarian entity, even an omnipotent one. I would argue that murdering a toddler is immoral regardless of who orders it. Different underlying assumptions lead to different conclusions.


----------



## VisionCasting (May 18, 2011)

This should settle it.   Kirk Cameron bests Hawking.  If Hawking can be schooled by a teen heartthrob, I just don't know if I'd hang my hat on his take! Hahahaha....

"Professor Hawking is heralded as 'the genius of Britain,' yet he believes in the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything and that life sprang from non-life." The former teen heartthrob steamed to TMZ. "Why should anyone believe Mr. Hawking's writings if he cannot provide evidence for his unscientific belief that out of nothing, everything came?”

Read more: http://entertainment.blogs.foxnews....claims-that-there-is-no-heaven/#ixzz1Mj3dvME7


----------



## gtparts (May 21, 2011)

Hawking???



Chan reminds us of how the Almighty God calls us to: "Seek God while he's here to be found,
pray to him while he's close at hand.
Let the wicked abandon their way of life
and the evil their way of thinking.
Let them come back to God, who is merciful,
come back to our God, who is lavish with forgiveness.
'I don't think the way you think.
The way you work isn't the way I work."
God's Decree.
"For as the sky soars high above earth,
so the way I work surpasses the way you work,
and the way I think is beyond the way you think." Isaiah 55:6-9


----------



## atlashunter (May 21, 2011)

Just one little problem with that gt. It isn't true. He fails to live up to the standards he sets for humanity much less some higher standard. He was a God designed for a Bronze Age culture and falls far short of the moral standards we now have.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 21, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Just one little problem with that gt. It isn't true. He fails to live up to the standards he sets for humanity much less some higher standard. He was a God designed for a Bronze Age culture and falls far short of the moral standards we now have.



Because we are SOOOO moral now?  Not sure what you mean.


----------



## bullethead (May 21, 2011)

The acts and actions of the god in the bible were only as advanced as the writers of the time could imagine in their heads. By today's standards none of it is shock and awe. Society advanced, the god in the bible did not.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 21, 2011)

bullethead said:


> The acts and actions of the god in the bible were only as advanced as the writers of the time could imagine in their heads. By today's standards none of it is shock and awe. Society advanced, the god in the bible did not.



I contend that society has regressed, and how do you know what Atlas meant anyhow?


----------



## bullethead (May 22, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> I contend that society has regressed, and how do you know what Atlas meant anyhow?



Yes, the internet is way slower now than it was 2000 years ago, and Atlas can and I am sure will answer for himself. I just shared my thoughts.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 22, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Yes, the internet is way slower now than it was 2000 years ago, and Atlas can and I am sure will answer for himself. I just shared my thoughts.



Order is chaos. Chaos is order.


----------



## gtparts (May 22, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Just one little problem with that gt. It isn't true. He fails to live up to the standards he sets for humanity much less some higher standard. He was a God designed for a Bronze Age culture and falls far short of the moral standards we now have.



Why would sovereign God have to live according to the standard He established for humans? Because you think He needs to do so?? And, what about humanity's standards?? You think they are somehow superior to the standard of perfection? God was not designed; He just is. 

Even so, I fully understand that you believe it to be untrue. You are entitled to be wrong, since God has given you the choice of making up your own mind. It truly saddens me that you won't have the opportunity to rectify that decision when you find out how you chose incorrectly.


----------



## atlashunter (May 22, 2011)

We now reject genocide, slavery, rape and stoning. Your God sanctions them. Plus he prescribes infinite punishments and infinite rewards based on finite choices in finite lives. That makes him morally inferior.


----------



## atlashunter (May 22, 2011)

Chan is right on the cusp of realizing how evil the God of the bible is. He just can't connect the dots that even he acknowledges are there because the bible says his ways are higher. What that really means is that we can't think of a reasonable explanation for all the evil acts God has done so we will provide him with a loophole to avoid explanation.


----------



## bullethead (May 22, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Why would sovereign God have to live according to the standard He established for humans? Because you think He needs to do so?? And, what about humanity's standards?? You think they are somehow superior to the standard of perfection? God was not designed; He just is.
> 
> Even so, I fully understand that you believe it to be untrue. You are entitled to be wrong, since God has given you the choice of making up your own mind. It truly saddens me that you won't have the opportunity to rectify that decision when you find out how you chose incorrectly.



It is fascinating that you have the inside scoop when no one else has produced a shred of proof to back up similar claims. Please show us how and where you got all this info.


----------

