God Genes and Gay Genes - hold the Levis

Cmass · Post by **Cmass** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:53 am

Lets assume there actually is a God gene: http://www.entheogens.com/godgene.html
and a Gay gene: http://www.webmd.com/content/article/100/105486.htm
I don't want to get bogged down in the specifics of the research because there are only a few people in this forum I would trust to debate it coherently. Instead, let us assume both these genes exist. (Please try, even if you don't trust the science)

If these genes were proven to exist, would it change your view of Christians, Gays, Gay Christians, Atheists or Gay Atheists?

Why?

Note: Genetic predisposition does not always guarantee a certain outcome, it only increases the likelihood. I am hoping this does not fall too far into a discussion of free will.....I want to know more about why YOU would or would not change your view of either group.

methylatedghosts · Post by **methylatedghosts** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:10 am

Cmass wrote: Good stuff.
I would add to that: Change IS time.

Agreed

And without time there is nothing. That is why there is no God.

Disagree. Before time, all there was, was god. God knew this, but he wanted to know experientially, so he created relativity (including time) to do so. But this is off topic

If God is "timeless" then God is changeless. If God is changeless, then he cannot change his mind or create anything from nothing because to do so would require he do something which would not be changeless.
Kapeesh?

Agreed.

Cmass · Post by **Cmass** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 5:23 am

God knew this, but he wanted to know experientially, so he created relativity (including time) to do so.

So, there was something that God did not know: experiential-ness. So, in order to fulfill this WANT of his, he had to go from one state of being "I am God and I have no needs or wants" to another state of being: "I am God and I WANT to know more about my experiential side so I will create something. Hmmmm, let's see here. Hmmmm...I have been thinking about this for an eternity! Hey! What if I invented time? Yea, that's it. And so there was time.

You are clearly saying there was something God did NOT know. And there was an experience God had not had and but wanted. There was a situation He needed to CHANGE.

methylatedghosts · Post by **methylatedghosts** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:49 am

Cmass wrote:
God knew this, but he wanted to know experientially, so he created relativity (including time) to do so.

So, there was something that God did not know: experiential-ness. So, in order to fulfill this WANT of his, he had to go from one state of being "I am God and I have no needs or wants" to another state of being: "I am God and I WANT to know more about my experiential side so I will create something. Hmmmm, let's see here. Hmmmm...I have been thinking about this for an eternity! Hey! What if I invented time? Yea, that's it. And so there was time.

You are clearly saying there was something God did NOT know. And there was an experience God had not had and but wanted. There was a situation He needed to CHANGE.

Yes, for this, god changed, but since then he has not changed. For that instant in which the big bang.... well.... banged, god changed. For that eternity (which really isn't an eternity if there is no time) god was all there was. In that instant matter was created. And so was time. For a particle was first here, but is now there, and the period it took to get there was measureable.

Now God is all there is and he can know it experientially thanks to relativity.

(does this make better sense?)

Cmass · Post by **Cmass** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:55 pm

Now God is all there is and he can know it experientially thanks to relativity.

(does this make better sense?)

None whatsoever
God had a want. He "decided" to do something about it at some point in "time".
You know, I think your argument would be a lot stronger if you simply insisted time existed before the big bang and that God has always existed.

methylatedghosts · Post by **methylatedghosts** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 11:19 pm

Cmass wrote:
Now God is all there is and he can know it experientially thanks to relativity.

(does this make better sense?)
None whatsoever
God had a want. He "decided" to do something about it at some point in "time".
You know, I think your argument would be a lot stronger if you simply insisted time existed before the big bang and that God has always existed.

But if there is nothing, no matter, no movement, how can there be time? Time is dependant on a thing moving. When there is no time, everything is instantaneous, so God wanting this is how he existed for that whole eternity/instant. God isn't a physical thing, he is not moving, and so he doesn't experience time. It is a concept almost beyond our comprehension - Einstein got very close to describing time and matter. I'm not 100% sure about it maybe not even 50%, but thats what makes it so wonderfully mysterious. And yes, God HAS always existed. Never said that at one point he didn't

Cmass · Post by **Cmass** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:23 am

God wanting this is how he existed for that whole eternity/instant. God isn't a physical thing, he is not moving, and so he doesn't experience time.

I know this is just a hypothetical chat, but where in the heck did you get this notion? Who came up with it and based upon what evidence or thinking construct?

methylatedghosts · Post by **methylatedghosts** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 3:51 am

Cmass wrote:
God wanting this is how he existed for that whole eternity/instant. God isn't a physical thing, he is not moving, and so he doesn't experience time.
I know this is just a hypothetical chat, but where in the heck did you get this notion? Who came up with it and based upon what evidence or thinking construct?

It is what makes sense to me, I took some of it from "Conversations With God" by Neale Donald Walsch.

Are you agreeing with this or disagreeing? Or trying to make up your mind?

Cmass · Post by **Cmass** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:52 am

It is what makes sense to me, I took some of it from "Conversations With God" by Neale Donald Walsch. Are you agreeing with this or disagreeing? Or trying to make up your mind?

You might as well have said "I believe the world was made by a giant flying spaghetti monster. Do you agree or disagree with me?"
I mean you no disrespect. Most people who wander into this forum and stay with it without pissing anyone off enough to get kicked out have my vote. But, no, I don't believe your made up stories. What I DO believe is that you are being honest - which, once again, gets my vote.

BTW: Are you referring to Neale's "Conversations With God"?

Cmass · Post by **Cmass** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:54 am

methylatedghosts,
I think your screen name should be changed to mentholated ghosts. I could really use a ghost that could clear my sinuses about now.

methylatedghosts · Post by **methylatedghosts** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:57 am

Cmass wrote:
It is what makes sense to me, I took some of it from "Conversations With God" by Neale Donald Walsch. Are you agreeing with this or disagreeing? Or trying to make up your mind?

You might as well have said "I believe the world was made by a giant flying spaghetti monster. Do you agree or disagree with me?"
I mean you no disrespect. Most people who wander into this forum and stay with it without pissing anyone off enough to get kicked out have my vote. But, no, I don't believe your made up stories. What I DO believe is that you are being honest - which, once again, gets my vote.

BTW: Are you referring to Neale's "Conversations With God"?

No, I was referring to was this:

God wanting this is how he existed for that whole eternity/instant. God isn't a physical thing, he is not moving, and so he doesn't experience time.

I was just confused about where you stood on it.

And, no offence taken