Definitions by ….
bert mccracken
bert mccracken by .... August 15, 2003
Cigelnik
huge FAG...anorexic loser, who thinks he can get women, but only gets the drunken, vulnerable ones who regret and hate themselves for fooling arounf with him the next day around.
"im Ciggy, all the girls want me! oh but wait, she isnt drunk enough! i cant get her, must get her to drink more....awwwww drunk now! now i can get into her pants! SCORE! I AM THE KING OF HOOKING UP!"
infinite regress
Before disussing the properties of a creator we have to assess if the universe was a created.
The cosmological argument assumes that there was a beginning, but it can again be contradicted simply by pointing out that the the matter which composes my body is eternal, never going to be created nor to be destroyed.
If we can`t prove that the universe was created, then we don`t need to think that actually a creator exists.
Second; the definition of God implies a being that is sentient. An eternal universe is absolutely not equal to a God because it lacks the capability of thinking.
Aristotele for example, believed that both God and Matter always existed, but yet he considered them to separate beings.
So I don`t really think that I'm calling the same thing under different names...
And I'll also ignore that puerile comment..
The cosmological argument assumes that there was a beginning, but it can again be contradicted simply by pointing out that the the matter which composes my body is eternal, never going to be created nor to be destroyed.
If we can`t prove that the universe was created, then we don`t need to think that actually a creator exists.
Second; the definition of God implies a being that is sentient. An eternal universe is absolutely not equal to a God because it lacks the capability of thinking.
Aristotele for example, believed that both God and Matter always existed, but yet he considered them to separate beings.
So I don`t really think that I'm calling the same thing under different names...
And I'll also ignore that puerile comment..
infinite regress by .... March 3, 2003