# my thoery.



## catchmetwenty2 (Mar 26, 2007)

well, first off, god is not a guy in heaven. saying that is also saying that he is not things. so god must be everything and nothing. you cannot blame god for everything bad happening in this world, he (im jsut gonna call it he) is just a force. you may say that the meaning of life is a test, another bs theory. if life is a test, and god is killing millions of innocent people to test you, hes one sick son a bitch. Hell does not exist. noone .. _noone_ deserves to be damned to hell for all of eternity. if someone blew up the earth, he wouldnt deserve to be damned to hell for eternity. eternity is a long time and to be tortured constantly for eternity, is to terrible to exist. i think that whatever is out side our universe is god, heaven. not in the respect of what religion says is heaven of god, but jsut that we couldnt not explain what we saw if we saw what was outside universe, there just would not be words to describe it, hence god. i think that universe runs parallel to ours and death is the trigger to get there. i think our universe in infinite for one reason. mirrors. our universe workds like mirrors, if you put 2 mirrors facing each other they go on forever. like our galxy


----------



## gigantes (Mar 26, 2007)

one time i was walking down the street minding my own business when i bumped into god so i said "i'm sorry, god" but he just spit in my eye so i got mad and punched him in the face and he fell over dead except when he died his body just dissolved like in those star wars films and later on i was having boiled fish for dinner and the fish looked up at me from the plate and spit in my eye again so i ate god the fish as revenge but he kept coming back to life until i was full and couldn't eat anymore so i threw the fish away but it just jumped up out of the trash back onto the table and started taunting me so i ran out of the apartment and never went back and lost all my wordly possessions but aside from the occasional safe that falls out of the sky and almost crushes me god doesn't bother me anymore except when i go to church when a booming voice says "get thee gone, mortal" so i don't bother going to church anymore and everything is cool with us now.

oh yeah and god tasted really, really good, too.


----------



## chrispenycate (Mar 26, 2007)

Layers of Divinity

1: the creator, the ultimate origin.
"The existence of a watch proves the existence of a watchmaker; therefore the existence of a universe, with all its complexities and physical laws, so much more sophisticated than a watch, demonstrates the existence of a designer, a creator, an organiser" 
I can evoke the anthropomorphic principle, observing that the existence of an observer (in this case, me, but you're welcome) demonstrates the existence of a universe, that without said observer no explanation would have been required - and any modification of the essential laws would have produced either no observer at all, or one who was trying to explain away a very different situation. However, this merely pushes away the argument, and creating a universe (and doing a splendid job at it too - I wonder how many failed prototypes there were) feels like something an exceedingly powerful, eternal mentality would do to pass the eons. Still, this only pushes the argument back one step; how does something as powerful and presumably complex as a god come into existence in the first place?

2: Source of life, of thought; very similar argument to the precedent. Numerous "primitive" religions just assume the hard bits were always there, and the responsibility of their deity(ies) starts with the introduction of life. Oh, sometimes the sun, moon and stars, attached to a domed sky over a flat world are added (either before or after the introduction of consciousness - realistic timescales  are complicated for someone who lives by the season) but the most important attributes of the god are to produce plants, huntable animals and ultimately ME - well, humanity in general (though that obviously doesn't include those hominids across the lake, look how hairy they are, they don't even talk right; they're evidently animals) This god doesn't even have to be on speaking terms with the previous one; much smaller scale, detail work. Gods doing weather,or volcanoes, or seas and mountains fall somewhere between the two responsibilities.

3: Society gods. Rather than taking the responsibility for all life, or even all humanity, they specialise in small groups, which they favour above all others, and allow to slaughter the non-members. Despite claiming omnipotence (and being the only inheritor of the earlier, more universal creation) they are frequently halted by equally omnipotent representatives of competing cultures (the idea of multiple omnipotences is philosophically interesting, isn't it?) Sticklers for detail, bureaucratic as only the highly intelligent narrow-spirited can manage (or at least their terrestrial representatives are, which, I suppose isn't the same thing; but how, save by their works, are we to judge them?) they cause more trouble than any of the others, convincing their followers to wage war on any of the sub-humans not in the clan.
Still, they do a lot of good, too, giving a basis for a morality system, and stabilising  society patterns (not always good ones, unfortunately, but any stability is preferable to chaos) It is unfortunate that they seem to reproduce by fission, new and interesting perversions spinning off at every crisis point.
Like lawyers, they like everything written down and absolute.

4: Personal gods. Comforting individuals after the previous set have been through sowing disruption through their lives, or persuading leaders and prophets to go forth and disrupt, these are the deities that not only observe the demise of each sparrow, but care. Their miracles tend to be less flashy, their attention to prayer and worship more individualised. Frequently subsystems within a larger whole, they are angels or demons, saints or spirits. Since individual requirements are frequently contradictory, they can't prevent catastrophes for some which may be blessings for others (sometimes several generations down the line) so earthquakes and tidal waves continue, as do any human-generated inconveniences involving free will (not merely wars, but all the greed-based pollution and repression) Omniscience, without omnipotence; sincere regret with no means to make amends, like divine social workers.

And, in recent religions, all of these roles must be held by one being, omniscient, omnipotent and infinitely compassionate; and if, even using free will as a pivot point, you can square that with the present situation, have I got a deal for you? Something got lost in the translation from goddish into sacred writings (enough got modified in the translation between human languages, without requiring the species crossover) Too many generations of hierarchical intervention and choice have scrambled the message somewhere; or else there is no message and the gods have been cynically created the better to control believers. Take your choice,. A single, all powerful deity? Two, classed as "good"  and "evil"? Multiples of barely co-operating divinites? Something which is mildly amused at humanity's attempts to worship it, as if we'd trained an ant not to come into the house, or openly sadistic, attempting to improve the species by continuous pressure, like a dog breeder. Or random chance, and humanity's own attempts to find patterns, order, in chaos.


----------



## catchmetwenty2 (Mar 27, 2007)

i thought people were gonna reply to what i said. i guess not.


----------



## gigantes (Mar 27, 2007)

i thought we both did. :I


----------



## dustinzgirl (Mar 27, 2007)

God is not a guy in heaven. God is heaven.


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 27, 2007)

dustinzgirl said:


> God is not a guy in heaven. God is heaven.


 
Dustie... are you referring to the idea put forth by Mephistopheles in Marlowe's Dr. Faustus? To wit:

"All place shall be hell that is not heaven"... along with "Why this is hell, nor am I out of it"?


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Mar 27, 2007)

catchmetwenty2 said:


> i thought people were gonna reply to what i said. i guess not.


 
Well you didn't really explain yourself very clearly.
As I have deciphered from your original post your opinion is that our universe has many parallel ones along side it (or just 1? You aren't very specific) and this is where life goes to when it 'dies'. I am presuming you mean all livings things or are you arrogant enough to think it's just humans? You also say that this is where 'God' resides (or this parallel universe _is_ God - again somewhat vague).
Sounds a fairly kooky theory to me but you're entitled to your beliefs - just don't ask me to share them.

I do agree with one aspect of your statement though - people are quick to label anything they can't understand to the divine (or magic as it used to be known in pagan times).


----------



## Bikewer (Mar 27, 2007)

God is a fig newton of human imagination.


----------



## mosaix (Mar 27, 2007)

catchmetwenty2 said:


> i thought people were gonna reply to what i said. i guess not.



How do you expect us to reply? Such a post is almost impossible to discuss as it seems to be just a theory you have just come up with without any justification.

Supposing I posted that I thought that icebergs had souls and that they gradually died as they melted but were reincarnated as snow fell and formed new glaciers.

How would *you* reply?

Anyway welcome to The Chronicles.


----------



## Pyan (Mar 27, 2007)

mosaix said:


> Supposing I posted that I thought that icebergs had souls and that they gradually died as they melted but were reincarnated as snow fell and formed new glaciers.



You telling me that's not true, Mosaix? Damn - there goes the *First Church of the Icecap!*


----------



## chrispenycate (Mar 27, 2007)

Actually, from what I gathered of the conjecture (too disorganised to be a hypothosis, and certainly lacking the nescessary critical evidence to be taken as a theory, however spelt) I was under the impression I was discussing the same subject; and as I'm god around here (a very localised deity, I fear, and not too big on the omnipotence, though I'm training for my omniscience certificate) considered my opinion bore some weight. Still, since we don't appear to share a language, my statements were doubtless as incomprehensible as the inverse.


----------



## mosaix (Mar 27, 2007)

pyan said:


> You telling me that's not true, Mosaix? Damn - there goes the *First Church of the Icecap!*



Pyan, can I suggest that you return *all* donations so far received? 


As for Chris being God, although I have the greatest respect  for you Chris -


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 27, 2007)

catchmetwenty2 said:


> i thought people were gonna reply to what i said. i guess not.


 
All right... a little less facetiously:

I'd say that the first two did reply to your post. However, Chris and mosaix are right, in that your idea is presented in such a way as to make it very difficult to follow what you're saying... not that I think the concept is that difficult, but the way it is phrased is very confusing. A little more care in that department, so that things are more clearly stated, is likely to garner more responses.

Secondly: the post as it stands, seems more to be a simple statement of your own idea, rather than putting out something for discussion. Sort of a "I was just thinking..." type of post, not really requiring a response as such. So... is there some aspect of this you'd like to discuss? Are you looking for (and no Python references here, please, folks [yeah, right; with _this_ crowd? ]) an argument on the subject -- not a shouting match, but a genuine debate-style argument?

Point being: if you're a little clearer in what you're trying to address, you might find it easier to get responses -- that way, people have a better idea both of what your own thoughts are, and what it is you're asking for.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Mar 28, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> Dustie... are you referring to the idea put forth by Mephistopheles in Marlowe's Dr. Faustus? To wit:
> 
> "All place shall be hell that is not heaven"... along with "Why this is hell, nor am I out of it"?



Like I would make an archaic reference to a beloved tale of heaven and hell, no sir, I certainly would not, for I know well what the demon meant.



These religion threads always put me in a mood.


PS: I only got through the first two sentances of the original post. I just couldn't read the rest.


----------



## gigantes (Mar 28, 2007)

tonight i was playing texas hold'em online when god came in the room and sat down at one of the empty seats.

on the first hand we all called on our hole cards and when the flop came it was 6-7-K.  so god went all-in with 50,000 chips and two of us called.  then god just missed hitting a straight on the river (he had 4-5) and the other guy won the pot with two pair, kings over sixes.

so god got kind of angry and asked "why did you two call me?" and the other guy said "well i was right to call you since i had the better hand", and god answered "but i'm GOD- you knew i could have had the straight if i wanted to" and the other guy said "whatever dude, i still won", and god got really mad and threatened to smite us and stuff, then left in a huff.

then for the next half hour everyone in the room was arguing about whether god was right to play the hand that way and whether everyone should fold out of respect whenever god bets and which of his major incarnations god had appeared in and whether there was a lesson in all of this for us.

i took part in the discussion for a little while but soon started saying "okay guys, can we just get back to some poker now?" but they just kept talking and talking about this stuff.

finally i left, thinking to myself "how is it that god does so little in the world, yet people can't seem to stop talking about him?"


----------



## dustinzgirl (Mar 28, 2007)

You know what. I think everyone is right. I know I am right from my perspective. JD is right from his. Gigantes is right. Chris is right. You know who isn't right? That freaking Jay Leno. I have it on good authority that he is actually half robot, half leprichaun.


----------



## catchmetwenty2 (Mar 29, 2007)

everyone is yelling at me for asking people to reply! i just wanted some criticism, like if anyone cares about my idea or not. and yes i meant that there is one parallel universe, which is heaven, god. whatever it is called. you go there when you die. dieing is the trigger to go to the other universe.


----------



## catchmetwenty2 (Mar 29, 2007)

and has anyone heard of that thing someone said. its like, in the beginning god was just there, but he could not see himself for who he was, so to become almighty he divided himself so he could see himself as awhole from other parts, which makes him almighty. and plus. if gods is supposed to be unconditional, then christianity is bs. if god is unconditional why are there commandments, why is there confessional. bah.


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 29, 2007)

catchmetwenty2 said:


> everyone is yelling at me for asking people to reply! i just wanted some criticism, like if anyone cares about my idea or not. and yes i meant that there is one parallel universe, which is heaven, god. whatever it is called. you go there when you die. dieing is the trigger to go to the other universe.


 
No, I wouldn't say people are yelling at you for asking them to reply... simply that (as I said earlier) the post itself wasn't clear on a lot of things, including what sort of feedback (if any) you were looking for. Being a bit clearer in what it is you're addressing, and the sort of responses you're looking for -- a debate, someone to talk over this idea with and refine it, looking at it as potential for possible literary use, etc. -- is likely to garner more germane responses.

As for the arguments you put forth in your last post here... I don't think you're going to find too many who'd argue that the typical religious view of god is tremendously skewed and nonsensical. It's been tinkered with over the millennia to fit the times, and it certainly hasn't remained what it was in the beginning... a very savage, primitive god typical of that time and place. Yet the later traditions held onto that because that was where their roots lay ... except even those roots didn't really tell the whole story, which goes back much, much farther, and borrowed from the beliefs of surrounding regions for even further millennia. "And so it goes."

Frankly, I see no reason to believe in a god at all. We have no verifiable evidence of the existence of any such, and to use the term "god" -- a very specific idea with roots reaching back into early animism, and linked to a certain specific set of associations -- for the nebulous sort of thing which you describe here seems sort of like using the word "tree" to describe some alien growth from another galaxy that we've never seen, have no evidence of its existence, and no idea whether  -- if it exists -- it belongs to the plant or animal kingdom, something that's a blending of both, or neither, but something totally outside our experience. Such a thing might, if we knew enough about it, fit the word "tree" in a very vague fashion, but this is highly unlikely. So with the use of the term "god" for the above. A "god", in any accepted use of the term, has anthropomorphic associations -- what you're (sort of) describing does not; a different term really is required in order for it to make sense.


----------



## mosaix (Mar 29, 2007)

catchmetwenty2 said:


> everyone is yelling at me for asking people to reply! i just wanted some criticism, like if anyone cares about my idea or not. and yes i meant that there is one parallel universe, which is heaven, god. whatever it is called. you go there when you die. dieing is the trigger to go to the other universe.



No yelling involved - Chronicles isn't that kind of place. 

If you'd like to tell us why you believe what you do maybe some kind of discussion could start.

BTW you didn't mention my iceberg theory - any reason?


----------



## catchmetwenty2 (Mar 30, 2007)

you what?


----------



## mosaix (Mar 30, 2007)

catchmetwenty2 said:


> you what?



I take it that you are referring to my iceberg theory? My point was that I invented an entirely spurious theory about icebergs. Without you explaining your train of thought regarding God and a parallel universe, then my theory is just as valid and just as worthy of discussion as yours.

Give us a little background to your theory, some meat we can get our teeth into - then we can discuss it.

Your opening sentence:

"well, first off, god is not a guy in heaven."

mine:

"icebergs have souls"

What's the difference? None. They're just opinions without anything backing them up.


----------



## catchmetwenty2 (Mar 31, 2007)

eh, i just wanted people to criticize it, i didnt really have anything backing it up. it just makes sense to me.


----------



## Admiral Ryouhei (Apr 9, 2007)

chrispenycate said:


> Layers of Divinity
> 
> 1: the creator, the ultimate origin.
> "The existence of a watch proves the existence of a watchmaker; therefore the existence of a universe, with all its complexities and physical laws, so much more sophisticated than a watch, demonstrates the existence of a designer, a creator, an organiser"
> I can evoke the anthropomorphic principle, observing that the existence of an observer (in this case, me, but you're welcome) demonstrates the existence of a universe, that without said observer no explanation would have been required - and any modification of the essential laws would have produced either no observer at all, or one who was trying to explain away a very different situation. However, this merely pushes away the argument, and creating a universe (and doing a splendid job at it too - I wonder how many failed prototypes there were) feels like something an exceedingly powerful, eternal mentality would do to pass the eons. Still, this only pushes the argument back one step; how does something as powerful and presumably complex as a god come into existence in the first place?


 
one problem, here, what if the watch was its own maker

meaning, I think therefore I am, sort of thing, what If some sentience brought everything into existence by merely believe it itself existed when nothing did

saying that the existence of a watch means someone or something made it is basing higher orders of our own little basic life that don't even understand 1% of 1% of in its complexity

if the watch entails the watchmaker then that entails the existence of the watch maker's mother and father, and so on into infinity, applying such logic doesn't work out when you really think about it


----------



## Space Smith (Aug 19, 2007)

God is like a Big Light. Around the light is a large black bag with a large /infinite number of pin pricks through it. Individual bits of light shine through representing you, me slugs, trees, my old dog that died, small greys, blades of grass - by degrees stones, rocks and so on.

That's why the near death experience has often been described as moving towards a large light etc


----------



## Interference (Aug 23, 2007)

There are no new theories about God.  I thought my idea of an Intelligent Universe was pretty much the bee's knees, but then I see someone else extolling the same possibility on these very pages (somewhere).

Putting God outside our Universe is no different from people, 2000 years ago, placing him in the sky.  Our perspectives are different, now, that's all.  We know pretty much what the sky is made of and how far it extends.  They didn't.  Now, we have no idea how big the universe is nor how many versions of it there might be (quantum theory notwithstranding - that was a typo, but I think I'll leave it.  I love creating cool words by accident  )  So, why shouldn't God live beyond that, somewhere?

Is God necessary?  If there were none, as Richard Dawkins suggests, would we suddenly decide to become morally corrupt?  Do we need a God to tell us what's good or bad?

Is religion, therefore, necessary with its trappings and its confessionals?  The Catholic Church emerged early on as an economic force, one that needed blind popular support to take power from the State.  It was this organisation that invented purgatory and eternal damnation, not God.  The Pope is a man with a job that entails wearing a dress.  What's not to trust?

Is God necessary II?  A hundred years ago, the average Joe and Jane had no concept of science, of evolution, of microwaves.  Now, they're part of basic education.  We know enough about what makes the Universe tick to question the existence of the Cosmic Watchmaker.  We know that what we don't know we can learn or discover.  It didn't take a God to light the blue touch paper to set off the Big Bang.  It took time, matter and energy.  Where did the Matter come from?  From a combination of Time and Energy.  Where did the Energy come from?  From a combination of Matter and Time.  Where did Time come from?  Solve that mystery and you will know everything.

Good luck finding God.  I hope you consider this a reply.

(I actually thought you were making a joke when you said "i thought people were gonna reply to what i said. i guess not." after crispenycate's omniscient post.

I guess not ... 

PS:

You see, the problem here is, I actually know what God is, but he won't let me tell anyone.  I can give hints, though, I don't think he'll mind me giving hints.

So, okay.  First hint:  If God were an umbrella, that's right.

Second hint:  Cheese makes for a better pizza.

Final hint (if you don't get it now, you never will):  My lament is for all my people, but not all my people may hear.


----------



## Mirela (Sep 15, 2007)

Hello, i thought to get into the discussion if you allow me.
"dieing is the trigger to go to the other universe."-which OTHER universe?
You have another universe in your theory?How do you think it is?Where it is?When 'it is'? How do you imagine this trigger? what happens?
I only agree with the established theory that when we die we are only a 'material' that occasionally will turn to energy or just change form to other 'material'. . .Like being the part of the earth. I would like you to elaborate your theory a little more, if you wish of course.


----------



## Mirela (Sep 15, 2007)

Interference said:


> There are no new theories about God.  I thought my idea of an Intelligent Universe was pretty much the bee's knees, but then I see someone else extolling the same possibility on these very pages (somewhere).
> 
> Putting God outside our Universe is no different from people, 2000 years ago, placing him in the sky.  Our perspectives are different, now, that's all.  We know pretty much what the sky is made of and how far it extends.  They didn't.  Now, we have no idea how big the universe is nor how many versions of it there might be (quantum theory notwithstranding - that was a typo, but I think I'll leave it.  I love creating cool words by accident  )  So, why shouldn't God live beyond that, somewhere?
> 
> ...


I like your point of view. Because you are right.
I too will say that religion was 'invented' when some kind of order was needed for people to live in good conditions. There were diseases, people killed each other for nothing...(these thing exist today as well but whatever let me get to the point) so religion came to solve these problems: it told people to get washed, it tells us not to steel, not to kill, not to...and everything what is good.
Religion was invented because people needed it. People need something to be afraid of so they can start doing the right things. If they are afraid of punishment for their actions they will be good.
Now, God is another issue. Everyone can think of God in his/hers own way. I think of God as the force that made the universe.I see God as nature and energy.Nature and energy exists, hence i believe in God.
Cheers
p.s.these discussions need a lot of space in this forum....
p.s.I hope my english is not too bad


----------



## Interference (Sep 17, 2007)

Mirela said:


> People need something to be afraid of so they can start doing the right things. If they are afraid of punishment for their actions they will be good.



The bad people do.  Good people will be good, anyway, which is why most atheists think we've outgrown the need for a god by now.

The most important thing religion did for humanity, since well before Christ, was make individuals think about the consequences of their actions.  Why is is so important to "Honour thy father and thy mother", for instance - let alone about what's bad about killing and stealing?  With politicians today trying to get parents to be better parents and children to respect the law, I think you can see why this was included in the commandments given to and delivered by Moses.  Think of how much more important a message it would have been five thousand years ago when civilisation was by no means widespread and getting people to listen to the priest was well-nigh impossible.

(No probs with the English, btw - nice use of the "whatever" gambit )


----------



## Mirela (Sep 17, 2007)

Interference said:


> The bad people do.  Good people will be good, anyway, which is why most atheists think we've outgrown the need for a god by now.
> 
> That is what i was trying to say...i think religion was useful (at least it was intended to be useful) to people before it existed.However, we see what is the situation with any religion today.  HUNGRY  people  try to satisfy their interest (economical, political or any other)   through it.
> However, it is nice to cherish a religion in its right true way as a way of living, or as a means of finding psychological peace. I respect all who believe or not. In addition i think religion is (should be) a very personal thing.
> ...


----------



## Interference (Sep 17, 2007)

Why, thank you, Mirela.  And I admire anyone who can find still hope for this world through their religion.  So, I guess that must include you.  

On the anarchy point, I would subscribe to the notion that we haven't gone through 200,000 years of growth and pain and inhumanity just to revert to it within a couple of generations.  If "anarchists" could experience life just 200 years ago, I don't think they'd be so quick to dismiss "order".

Perhaps our understanding of order is what needs to be revised a little.  Humankind was never meant to be automated, but neither was it intended to abolish conscience, a faculty that helps to make the best of us worth admiring.


----------



## Mirela (Sep 17, 2007)

Interference said:


> Why, thank you, Mirela.  And I admire anyone who can find still hope for this world through their religion.  So, I guess that must include you.
> 
> On the anarchy point, I would subscribe to the notion that we haven't gone through 200,000 years of growth and pain and inhumanity just to revert to it within a couple of generations.  If "anarchists" could experience life just 200 years ago, I don't think they'd be so quick to dismiss "order".




Well, it is not that exaggerating. Finding hope through positive action i may say, Interference...(be it through social, political, economical... action).
For me religion is only for yourself, for your being if you wish...it is the matter of how you feel better, with it or without it? Let us leave religion in our deepest self.It is better that way. I do not like acting through religion to get smth.
Am i somehow a mess with my posts? i feel like i am


----------



## Mirela (Sep 17, 2007)

Interference said:


> Perhaps our understanding of order is what needs to be revised a little.  Humankind was never meant to be automated, but neither was it intended to abolish conscience, a faculty that helps to make the best of us worth admiring.



i only agree with this


----------



## Interference (Sep 17, 2007)

Mirela said:


> Am i somehow a mess with my posts? i feel like i am



If I could speak Greek as well as you write English, I'd holiday in Greece.

Anyway, you're expressing your views and your thoughts clearly, which is why language was invented.  In places you used different word orders  from those that I'd have chosen, but any ten people would have written _this_ message completely differently, too.  A mess?  Definitely not.

For me, this is a very pleasant and enjoyable chat.


----------



## Mirela (Sep 17, 2007)

Interference said:


> If I could speak Greek as well as you write English, I'd holiday in Greece.
> 
> Anyway, you're expressing your views and your thoughts clearly, which is why language was invented.  In places you used different word orders  from those that I'd have chosen, but any ten people would have written _this_ message completely differently, too.  A mess?  Definitely not.
> 
> For me, this is a very pleasant and enjoyable chat.



 Well i am glad to hear that...
it is a pleasant chat for me as well
p.s. do you know greek?i mean...study it?


----------



## Interference (Sep 17, 2007)

No, but I knew a two Greeks at college who taught me to swear fluently in their language.


----------



## Spartan27 (Sep 20, 2007)

mosaix said:


> How do you expect us to reply? Such a post is almost impossible to discuss as it seems to be just a theory you have just come up with without any justification.
> 
> Supposing I posted that I thought that icebergs had souls and that they gradually died as they melted but were reincarnated as snow fell and formed new glaciers.
> 
> ...


 
Iceberg's having souls ehh? You just described Frosty the Snowman. All's that's missing is the top hat.


----------



## Spartan27 (Sep 20, 2007)

Interference said:


> No, but I knew a two Greeks at college who taught me to swear fluently in their language.


 
I can also provide that insight to you and that would make three.


----------



## purple_kathryn (Sep 20, 2007)

the problem with scientific theories is that you're expected to provide some evidence to back it up


----------

