The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

If God exists, then who created HIM? Options
Trichakra
Posted: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 12:35:51 AM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 8/30/2016
Posts: 37
Neurons: 161
There's evidence for evolution, but there's no evidence for God.
Eoin Riedy
Posted: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 10:23:26 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/28/2016
Posts: 182
Neurons: 1,099
Location: St. Louis, Missouri, United States
The Athanasian Creed addresses the issue by stating:

Increatus Pater, increatus Filius, increatus [et] Spiritus Sanctus...Sicut non tres increati...sed unus increatus...
The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated...As also there are not three uncreated...but one uncreated...

It isn't evolutionary science or any kind of science at all, it's religion.
There may be word problems in mathematics class, but mathematics is not language arts.
desca
Posted: Sunday, September 18, 2016 5:53:10 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 10/31/2015
Posts: 72
Neurons: 9,403
Trichakra wrote :
There's evidence for evolution, but there's no evidence for God.


You're sure there's evidence for evolution ? you're not just saying are you?

And how do you know ?
Absinthius
Posted: Monday, September 19, 2016 6:26:48 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/23/2015
Posts: 360
Neurons: 23,113
Location: Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands
Evolution has been proven over and over again. Evolution is a fact.

Look, how about this? Let's pretend we've had the row and I've won. See? It saves a lot of effort.
desca
Posted: Monday, September 19, 2016 5:30:51 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 10/31/2015
Posts: 72
Neurons: 9,403
Absinthius wrote :
Evolution has been proven over and over again. Evolution is a fact.


Which evolution are you referring to ?



Litvinenko
Posted: Monday, September 19, 2016 7:07:01 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/17/2012
Posts: 185
Neurons: 856
That human originated from dolphins 100000000000000 years ago. You don't have evidence that evolution is wrong do you?

A perfect design, with no designer.
desca
Posted: Monday, September 19, 2016 10:55:06 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 10/31/2015
Posts: 72
Neurons: 9,403
Litvinenko wrote :
That human originated from dolphins 100000000000000 years ago. You don't have evidence that evolution is wrong do you?


"The evidence that evolution is wrong" is when you can't provide evidence for evolution.




Hope123
Posted: Monday, September 19, 2016 11:39:27 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,061
Neurons: 46,361
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Hi Trichakra.

The answer to your title question, "If God exists, who created him?" is that humans created God.

The trouble with the world - the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell
desca
Posted: Monday, September 19, 2016 11:58:35 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 10/31/2015
Posts: 72
Neurons: 9,403
Hope123 wrote :
Hi Trichakra.

The answer to your title question, "If God exists, who created him?" is that humans created God.


Did humans create the sky ? Did humans create the universe ?




Absinthius
Posted: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:51:32 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/23/2015
Posts: 360
Neurons: 23,113
Location: Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands
desca wrote:
Litvinenko wrote :
That human originated from dolphins 100000000000000 years ago. You don't have evidence that evolution is wrong do you?


"The evidence that evolution is wrong" is when you can't provide evidence for evolution.






Let's apply that criterium to god, shall we?

Evolution has been proven over and over again on a small scale, evolution of bacteria is a very roadly used and accepted technique.

When looking at the genome of known species, you can lok at all the conserved genes. A very clear 'tree' can be drawn purely based on where and which differences can be found.

Evolution is fact, the driving force behind it is most probably natural selection. There are plenty of great books about this, they explain this in much better ways than I possibly could.

Look, how about this? Let's pretend we've had the row and I've won. See? It saves a lot of effort.
thar
Posted: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 5:10:28 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 17,417
Neurons: 70,562
Always with the evolution d'oh! - nothing at all to do with any god, as far as I can see!

Although I happen to agree with Hope - humans invented gods - I can see the other point of view - God exists.

But then the question seems petty. If there really is a God, why do you have to ask who created it - surely being a God makes you above all that? God - immortal, eternal, creator of all things and all life - and you are asking what made it? Who is God's God? Kind of defeats the object, doesn't it. Seems the wrong question to me. Far too prosaic and human-scale. Think outside the box! Believe! Or not. But at least do it with conviction. If you are going to have a god, have a real God! Whistle
Absinthius
Posted: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 5:25:37 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/23/2015
Posts: 360
Neurons: 23,113
Location: Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands
thar wrote:
But then the question seems petty. If there really is a God, why do you have to ask who created it - surely being a God makes you above all that? God - immortal, eternal, creator of all things and all life - and you are asking what made it? Who is God's God? Kind of defeats the object, doesn't it. Seems the wrong question to me. Far too prosaic and human-scale. Think outside the box! Believe! Or not. But at least do it with conviction. If you are going to have a god, have a real God! Whistle


Because usually the necessity for god comes about to explain the complexity of reality. If the universe and its contents are so complex that you need a god to create it, then presumably the god is even more complex. This is a logical fallacy, because if the complexity of the universe needs a creator, then the even larger complexity of the creator would most defintely need an even more complex creator, and so forth.

Of course nobody who asks who created god actually thinks that it is a legitimate question, it is a tool to show a very flawed argument.

Look, how about this? Let's pretend we've had the row and I've won. See? It saves a lot of effort.
thar
Posted: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 7:08:56 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 17,417
Neurons: 70,562
That's the point I can never understand with all these discussions. If you don't believe in God, why try to argue 'it' doesn't exist - or try to make logical objections, and demand proof? If people do believe in a god, then that has nothing to do with logic.
It is like trying to convince the referee someone was offside by saying the player doesn't like oranges.
It may be true - but it completely misses the point! d'oh!

And yet these arguments about creation and God continue. Ad infitum.... which is kind of ironic.
Maryam Dad
Posted: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 8:41:42 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/13/2013
Posts: 676
Neurons: 3,419
I googled about what came first, egg or hen according to Islam. I found the answer in a verse of Quran (chapter 31, verse 10).

Quote:
He created the heavens without any pillars that ye can see; He set on the earth mountains standing firm lest it should shake with you; and He scattered through it beasts of all kinds. We send down rain from the sky and produce on the earth every kind of noble creature in pairs


So eggs came after hen and cock.

I am not sure if scientists agree with that.

*sorry I bit off topic.

"And the sun and the moon are brought together --" (Al Qiyamah: 9)
desca
Posted: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 12:53:38 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 10/31/2015
Posts: 72
Neurons: 9,403
Absinthius wrote :
Let's apply that criterium to god, shall we?

Evolution has been proven over and over again on a small scale, evolution of bacteria is a very roadly used and accepted technique.

When looking at the genome of known species, you can lok at all the conserved genes. A very clear 'tree' can be drawn purely based on where and which differences can be found.

Evolution is fact, the driving force behind it is most probably natural selection. There are plenty of great books about this, they explain this in much better ways than I possibly could.


**********************************************************************************************************

I asked of which evolution the topic maker referring to. If you only use Evolution of Bacteria as fact, it's going to be a different story if you use that other evolution that's "popular" made.


I'm going to ask, how bacteria existed before the evolution ?



Absinthius
Posted: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 2:25:10 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/23/2015
Posts: 360
Neurons: 23,113
Location: Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands
That question just shows you do not understand the concept of evolution, I would suggest reading up on it.

"The selfish gene" by Richard Dawkins is a pretty good place to start.

Look, how about this? Let's pretend we've had the row and I've won. See? It saves a lot of effort.
desca
Posted: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:07:16 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 10/31/2015
Posts: 72
Neurons: 9,403
Absinthius wrote :
That question just shows you do not understand the concept of evolution, I would suggest reading up on it.

"The selfish gene" by Richard Dawkins is a pretty good place to start.


*********************************************************************************************************


Maybe it's you that do not understand the concept of existence. Evolution starts with the existence of the initial stage.




Absinthius
Posted: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:18:07 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/23/2015
Posts: 360
Neurons: 23,113
Location: Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands
Life evolved from non-life. We have very understandable and explanatory models of how that would have probably worked. Evolution is not something that started after life was magically summoned into existence, the proces of evolution was pivotal for life to come around.

Once again, I would strongly suggest you read up on this, you would be surprised how beautifully interesting this stuff actually is.

Look, how about this? Let's pretend we've had the row and I've won. See? It saves a lot of effort.
Absurdicuss
Posted: Sunday, October 2, 2016 12:59:15 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/8/2013
Posts: 2,871
Neurons: 29,776
Location: Jefferson, South Carolina, United States

That which we refer to as "God" is the uncreated, absolutely essential non-contingent agent that underpins and is the impetus to all that is, everything that follows.

For "God" to have been created would require an even more powerful previous creator ad infinitum, resulting in an absurd state of infinite regression and the impossibility of that which we call "NOW".

This, like a square circle, is a logical impossibility.


The very fact of logic is evidence of ultimate logic, ergo the originator of said logic; GOD.






"Now" is the eternal present.
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Wednesday, February 8, 2017 3:38:50 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 469
Neurons: 2,443
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
Absurdicuss wrote:

That which we refer to as "God" is the uncreated, absolutely essential non-contingent agent that underpins and is the impetus to all that is, everything that follows.

For "God" to have been created would require an even more powerful previous creator ad infinitum, resulting in an absurd state of infinite regression and the impossibility of that which we call "NOW".

This, like a square circle, is a logical impossibility.


The very fact of logic is evidence of ultimate logic, ergo the originator of said logic; GOD.






The whole idea of "creation" is based on our experince in the material world, where there is time, and things change over time, so there is a begining and an end, and there is the origin to everything.

But there is a parellel reality (in fact, the more I think of it the more I come to the conclusion that it is the only true reality...). We all know it. We all perfectly know real things that are immortal and eternel and not created by anyone. Think of the Theorem of Phyphagoras, for example. It states facts about an ideal triangle. It states an ultimate truth that is eternel. It was true 100 million years ago just as it is true now. It is true no metter where you are - on Earth, on Mars, or in another galaxy. It exists independently of and irrespective of time and space.

Now, I don't know how to relate this to the concept of "God", but I thought maybe it was a good place to start thinking.
Absinthius
Posted: Wednesday, February 8, 2017 9:09:24 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/23/2015
Posts: 360
Neurons: 23,113
Location: Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:


But there is a parellel reality (in fact, the more I think of it the more I come to the conclusion that it is the only true reality...). We all know it. We all perfectly know real things that are immortal and eternel and not created by anyone. Think of the Theorem of Phyphagoras, for example. It states facts about an ideal triangle. It states an ultimate truth that is eternel. It was true 100 million years ago just as it is true now. It is true no metter where you are - on Earth, on Mars, or in another galaxy. It exists independently of and irrespective of time and space.

Now, I don't know how to relate this to the concept of "God", but I thought maybe it was a good place to start thinking.


I don't think your comparison really holds. Truths like the Theorem of Pythagoras are purely descriptive. Reality does not bend to fit the theorem. If you apply this reasoning to anything like a god, then all religions in which any god dictated or created or bend anything to his/her will would fall outside of it immediately.

Another distinct difference is that eternal truths that you mention are only recognised as such because we can test them. Our inability to falsify them makes them universally (or eternally as you call it) true. The god hypthesis, as I'm sure you will agree, lacks any such testability.

Look, how about this? Let's pretend we've had the row and I've won. See? It saves a lot of effort.
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Thursday, February 9, 2017 5:14:19 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 469
Neurons: 2,443
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
Absinthius wrote:

I don't think your comparison really holds. Truths like the Theorem of Pythagoras are purely descriptive. Reality does not bend to fit the theorem. If you apply this reasoning to anything like a god, then all religions in which any god dictated or created or bend anything to his/her will would fall outside of it immediately.


I think the main disconnection here is that you tend to think of "reality" as of physical reality. It is pretty obvious that in this part of the reality there can be nothing or no-one who would have a fundamentally different nature from what we the humans have, i.e. there can be no real God. There can possibly be entities more powerful than humans, but they would be subject to the same laws of physics that we the humans and the rest of the physical world is subject to.

The point I am trying to make is that there is another part of the reality. And we all know at least some pieces of it. The facts of mathematics may not be the only "residents" of that reality, but they present an example, a piece that we know is there and what we can comprehend. The facts of math are real and exist on their own, they are immortal, eternel and not created by anyone. I thought this could help us to start answering the question that was raised in this thread - basically, who created what was in place before everthing else was created?

As I said, I do not know how the concept of "God" fits into this. Maybe it's what they call "Holy Spirit"?Think

Absinthius wrote:

Another distinct difference is that eternal truths that you mention are only recognised as such because we can test them. Our inability to falsify them makes them universally (or eternally as you call it) true. The god hypthesis, as I'm sure you will agree, lacks any such testability.


I am not sure I see your point here... How can you "test" the theorem of Pyphagoras?? In the physical world we cannot, because you can't have an ideal triangle in the physical world. Objects in this world are just rough approximations of their examplars from the ideal reality. If you make measurements on a "material" triangle the numbers you get will never be exactly what they should be according to the Theorem.

Instead, it is in that ideal parralel reality where the Theorem of Pypharoras really holds. This is exactly why we cannot falsify it. There it is logically derived from definitions and there's nothing you can do to falsify the result.

And as said before, physical space and time have no bearing on the truthfulness of mathimatical facts whatsoever. They are just there - firm, immortal and eternel, and they don't care what we the mortals say, do or think of them. Angel




Absinthius
Posted: Thursday, February 9, 2017 8:02:57 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/23/2015
Posts: 360
Neurons: 23,113
Location: Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands
[quote=Kirill Vorobyov
And as said before, physical space and time have no bearing on the truthfulness of mathimatical facts whatsoever. They are just there - firm, immortal and eternel, and they don't care what we the mortals say, do or think of them. Angel
[/quote]

You seem to consider them as entities, words like immortality and eternity seem rather weird to use here. Are you claiming that the reality of geometry is true because of e.g. the theorem of Pythagoras? I think that is an unprovable and rather outandish claim: The theorem is true because it fits with reality, not the other way around. As I mentioned, they are descriptive of reality, physical or not. And they are testable through mathematics, if you use the formulas everything 'adds up' so to speak, no gaps remain.

This can not be said of the god hypothesis. Hence my conclusion that this comparison does not stand for very long.

Look, how about this? Let's pretend we've had the row and I've won. See? It saves a lot of effort.
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Thursday, February 9, 2017 8:44:38 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 469
Neurons: 2,443
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
Absinthius wrote:

The theorem is true because it fits with reality, not the other way around.


Oops! I am sorry, but this is simply wrong. This is where misunderstanding comes from.

The Theorem of Pyphagorus is true in the 3-dimentional Euclidian space, which is a mathematical and not physical concept, because the theorem is logically derived from the postulates of the Euclidean space, i.e. derived from that space's formal definition. The validity of the theorem has nothing to do with the "physical reality" and cannot be neither questioned nor verified by any sort of test other than the formal logic. It exists and holds in the ideal world where the math lives (and God/gods?Angel ), not in the physical world.

In fact, we have no proof that the physical space we live in is in fact a 3-dimentional Euclidian space... All we know is that calculations that are made based on the 3-dimentional Euclidian model produce acceptable results when applied to objects on our planet and in its vicinity. But whether the whole physical space (the whole Universe) is descriptable using the model of a 3-dimentinal Euclidian space is VERY doubtful, to say the least.
Absinthius
Posted: Thursday, February 9, 2017 9:40:47 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/23/2015
Posts: 360
Neurons: 23,113
Location: Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands
A very beautiful answer, but not to the question I asked.

But I am still not sure whether you think mathematics dictate reality (physical or not) or whether reality is set and mathematical formulas elegantly describe that reality.

Look, how about this? Let's pretend we've had the row and I've won. See? It saves a lot of effort.
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Friday, February 10, 2017 2:57:03 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 469
Neurons: 2,443
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
Absinthius wrote:
A very beautiful answer, but not to the question I asked.

Boo hoo! Which one?

I am responding directly to the problem raised in the OP ("if God created the Universe, who created Him?").

I'm saying that mathematical facts present us a proof that there is another part of the reality, where there is no time, and therefore the notion of "creation" is not applicable there. That world just exists, it is static. Mathematicians explore it as part of their everyday job.
jacobusmaximus
Posted: Friday, February 10, 2017 3:22:46 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/17/2009
Posts: 11,442
Neurons: 419,272
Location: Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
Belief in God exists and that's a fact. Therefore, God exists. There is no evidence to prove that my God does not exist.

I remember, therefore I am.
will
Posted: Friday, February 10, 2017 8:27:18 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,090
Neurons: 4,430
I believe Norman the God Annihilating Magic Jellyfish exists and that's a fact. Therefore, by your reasoning, Norman the God Annihilating Magic Jellyfish exists.

I believe Norman the God Annihilating Magic Jellyfish, by definition, makes the existence of Gods impossible and that’s a fact. Therefore, by your reasoning, no Gods exist.

There is no evidence to prove that Norman the God Annihilating Magic Jellyfish does not exist.

If you can’t prove that Norman the God Annihilating Magic Jellyfish doesn’t exist, by your reasoning, he does and therefore your God doesn’t.

If you think you can prove that Norman the God Annihilating Magic Jellyfish doesn’t exist, then apply the same logic to your God… and the multiple reasons as to why your reasoning is logically invalid should become abundantly clear.



jacobusmaximus
Posted: Friday, February 10, 2017 12:16:32 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/17/2009
Posts: 11,442
Neurons: 419,272
Location: Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
will wrote:
I believe Norman the God Annihilating Magic Jellyfish exists and that's a fact. Therefore, by your reasoning, Norman the God Annihilating Magic Jellyfish exists.

Well if it really is a fact, as you claim, then Norman etc., exists for you, you poor thing.

I believe Norman the God Annihilating Magic Jellyfish, by definition, makes the existence of Gods impossible and that’s a fact. Therefore, by your reasoning, no Gods exist.

Now you have lost me, but I'm with you.Whistle

There is no evidence to prove that Norman the God Annihilating Magic Jellyfish does not exist.

If you can’t prove that Norman the God Annihilating Magic Jellyfish doesn’t exist, by your reasoning, he does and therefore your God doesn’t.

If you think you can prove that Norman the God Annihilating Magic Jellyfish doesn’t exist, then apply the same logic to your God… and the multiple reasons as to why your reasoning is logically invalid should become abundantly clear.

Take two aspirins and some black coffee and all will be well in the morning.





I remember, therefore I am.
will
Posted: Sunday, February 12, 2017 11:12:22 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,090
Neurons: 4,430
See, the mere mention of Norman has caused you to change the premise on which you originally based the existence of your God… he’s not called the God Annihilating Magic Jellyfish for nothing. Dancing

jacobusmaximus wrote:
Well if it really is a fact, as you claim, then Norman etc., exists for you, you poor thing.

‘If it really is a fact…' and ' exists for you' inserts relativism into your original statement. You’ve moved the goalposts.

Your original statement was ‘Belief in X = Existence of X’

Now you are saying ‘Belief in X = Existence of a belief in X’, which although more accurate is a significantly more trivial statement. Such a statement only becomes non-trivial with the addition of evidence. Which you apparently claimed not to need.

The existence of a belief in Santa, without evidence, is a trivial basis for genocide and conflict, and a vacuous basis for any notion of morality… I’m sure you’ll agree?

jacobusmaximus wrote:
Now you have lost me...

Clearly. And I’m afraid simply believing really hard in the existence of a personal understanding of formal logic is not going to make it so. Whistle

jacobusmaximus wrote:
Take two aspirins and some black coffee and all will be well in the morning.

I’ve taken my aspirins and black coffee and all is well. How are you this morning? Did you find evidence to prove that Norman the God Annihilating Magic Jellyfish doesn’t exist?


.
will
Posted: Sunday, February 12, 2017 11:13:34 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,090
Neurons: 4,430
I’ve just skimmed the thread to make sure I wasn’t veering off topic or repeating something already said. I’ve two small things to add:

thar wrote:
That's the point I can never understand with all these discussions. If you don't believe in God, why try to argue 'it' doesn't exist - or try to make logical objections, and demand proof? If people do believe in a god, then that has nothing to do with logic.

Gods are not the point; the issue is critical thinking – as opposed to magical, wishful, dogmatic or irrational. If not with logic, how else would you suggest societies limit the influence of illogical beliefs that lead to illogical actions?

And apologies Absinthius and Kirill Vorobyov, I kind of crashed your discussion. Feel free to continue… jacobusmaximus and I are surely close to the inevitable cul-de-sac where he argues Faith transcends human logic and I invite him to exit his house via an upstairs window. Think


.
jacobusmaximus
Posted: Sunday, February 12, 2017 3:56:03 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/17/2009
Posts: 11,442
Neurons: 419,272
Location: Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
will wrote:
I’ve just skimmed the thread to make sure I wasn’t veering off topic or repeating something already said. I’ve two small things to add:

thar wrote:
That's the point I can never understand with all these discussions. If you don't believe in God, why try to argue 'it' doesn't exist - or try to make logical objections, and demand proof? If people do believe in a god, then that has nothing to do with logic.

Gods are not the point; the issue is critical thinking – as opposed to magical, wishful, dogmatic or irrational. If not with logic, how else would you suggest societies limit the influence of illogical beliefs that lead to illogical actions?

And apologies Absinthius and Kirill Vorobyov, I kind of crashed your discussion. Feel free to continue… jacobusmaximus and I are surely close to the inevitable cul-de-sac where he argues Faith transcends human logic and I invite him to exit his house via an upstairs window. Think


.


Done it! The ladder came in handy. It was my belief that the ladder was real and would take my weight that made it all possible.

(Edited)

I remember, therefore I am.
Absinthius
Posted: Monday, February 13, 2017 3:24:00 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/23/2015
Posts: 360
Neurons: 23,113
Location: Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands
will wrote:
And apologies Absinthius and Kirill Vorobyov, I kind of crashed your discussion. Feel free to continue… jacobusmaximus and I are surely close to the inevitable cul-de-sac where he argues Faith transcends human logic and I invite him to exit his house via an upstairs window. Think


.


No worries, I had just about satisfied my thirst for pointless ramblings. I enjoy reading about Norman much more!

Look, how about this? Let's pretend we've had the row and I've won. See? It saves a lot of effort.
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Monday, February 13, 2017 8:27:55 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 469
Neurons: 2,443
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
will wrote:

And apologies Absinthius and Kirill Vorobyov, I kind of crashed your discussion. Feel free to continue… jacobusmaximus and I are surely close to the inevitable cul-de-sac where he argues Faith transcends human logic and I invite him to exit his house via an upstairs window. Think


.


Unlike Absinthius I think our exchange was in fact very much to the point. Angel
But as far as I am concerned I don't have much to add to what I said above, so you didn't crash anything from my perspective anyway.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Monday, February 13, 2017 9:46:31 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 29,715
Neurons: 172,120
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
jacobusmaximus wrote:
Done it! The ladder came in handy. It was my belief that the ladder was real and would take my weight that made it all possible.(Edited)

Ah - but are you really sure that the distance between the window and the ground was real - and that you didn't just step out 'on the level'.
Or - that you didn't fall and are now in the hospital in a coma dreaming all this.

So many possibilities . . .

Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.