itachi-san

OK, I'll just go with "I'm not convinced of the existence of a being with those qualities". I suppose anything is possible, even a flying spaghetti monster. Well, I think it's kinda funny you're so firmly devoted to something that has garnered no proof in its entire supposed eternal existence, well 99.9999% at least. I never said I didn't know who Richard Dawkins was, I was merely making light of you providing a random quote and then immediately stating that you knew I would disagree with it. That's kind of a silly response. Just because I don't believe in a typical religious system makes me an atheist? How many times have I said that I believe in God? -plenty now. Arguing against normal religious thought means that I can't accept life has a purpose? Are you serious? Asking what is the purpose if there is no God, is equivalent to asking what is the purpose if there is a God. Both parties are still looking for a purpose. So humans "do not see ahead, do not plan consequences, and have no purpose in view"? We are still evolving and we do all three of these things. Of course there isn't knowledge of an end goal (at least not known to us yet); if there was we wouldn't have anything to debate. Fair enough. Never of us can actually prove anything. These are just beliefs after all. I don't agree with the comment about wings and prior purposes, but that's hardly the point. Sure I believe that life is leading toward a universal connection, I've already stated that. I can see no reason for exploration from a theists point of view. But for life to find more life, that just makes sense to me. You mentioned the singularity somewhere in this post and that's exactly it. All of whatever life is was in one place essentially and now it's interspersed throughout the universe. I believe that the goal of life on Earth is to coalesce with other instances of life and gain from that collective entity. How did life start on Earth? I don't know, no one does. I'm honestly much more in favor of some extra terrestrial reason over a divine creator we can never possibly prove exists. I would answer "Do you believe that the origination of life on Earth was guided by a higher intelligence?" with: Yes, but it wasn't God. And I would answer "Do you believe there was a larger purpose to the organization of the various chemicals needed to result in life?" Yes, but not to result in life, rather to allow life to be. Life being eternal or not is another assumption that cannot be proved. And once again, any organized theory of life evolving has to be an accident. There's no way life can have a purpose that we can't perceive... according to you. Without the invisible God to guide it for a perfectly good reason of course. Like I said before, there is a possibility that the purpose for life gathering cannot be known to us until either: it has gathered, or we evolve more and gain a better understanding of the universe. This is exactly the answer I was expecting. It's so blatantly convenient that I literally find it impossible to believe that you believe it. That is really how I feel and I don't mean offense because you are clearly intelligent. You may have well have just answered "No, I can't describe it. I just believe it." You have been prodding and trying to poke holes in my belief of God, which is fine be assured, but then offer your own belief which I am incapable of poking a hole through because (to me) the entire idea is a hole. There is nothing anywhere in reality that suggests any part of your belief is true. And I could ask an infinite amount of questions that would make just as much sense if the answers were yes, like: "Why not 2 Gods? Why is God all alone on his plane of existence? If he is immeasurably intelligent then what is the point of anything in the universe? He surely must know the answers without having to test it all out. Why did he decide to make the universe?, etc..."

That's fine, I'll agree to disagree here. I don't think along the lines of all of these "attributes" (except 3.) because to me they are not possible and therefore not attributes, but fantasies. Aren't you saying exactly what I said? The only proof you have is in books and words, which are not facts. Any scientific facts you did or did not mention here are not logically conclusive that God exists and is greater than life. Yeah, just because this guy said something doesn't mean I'm going to believe it and I don't. I can't help but notice you're ignoring adaptation and survival as key principles of evolution. They are certainly not blind phenomena. Not being sarcastic - could you quote where I was contradictory? If I was then I'll apologize and clear it up. Just because I don't believe #1 doesn't mean that I believe the opposite... that's like asking: "Do you believe that a car is up?", and when I say "No", you say: "Then you must believe that a car is down". Come on. What natural forces you ask? What unnatural forces would there be? How can something guide it's own creation? I never once mentioned life's creation. I'm not sure, because nobody knows, if life is eternal or not. I reject all of them except the 3rd "attribute". Though I could make a case for the first two, but that really doesn't make much of a point. Why does everything have to be blind and accidental if there isn't a mysterious God watching and tweaking from some place that cannot be defined? Why can't all the universe's cause and reason lie within the universe? Since I've said that I believe God is life which is a pretty clear statement, though you consistently say that it is not, how about you offer your belief of what God is (forgive me if you've already said it and I haven't seen it). But even if you have already explained it, can you sum up what you believe God is in a clear and concise statement? And I don't mean that you believe God is creator, omnipotent, etc... I mean what exactly do you believe God is? Do you believe God is a large man with a white beard sitting on a throne above a cloud? I'm very interested to know. Edit: I have read most of your other posts in this forum, but a lot of them are about the Bible and I have nothing to add really. They are very interesting though.

A self-employed mask maker?! good one!

First, I'd just like to clarify that I am opposed to everyone being able to edit their posts after the allotted 10 minutes and that it should always be reserved for admin, moderators, and vip. Unlimited editing would be taken advantage of and then there would be a ton of posts like: "This isn't the way the puzzle looked yesterday", "you changed 3 km to 4 km, now all of my work is wrong", etc... I am however, proposing an Edit Box for everyone to be able to use. Say, for instance, I made a puzzle similar to bonanova's 3 words puzzles and not just like that, but any word/math puzzle that has multiple parts. I would like a function similar to the Spoiler Box called Edit Box that can be edited by the topic originator at any time. Therefore, the OP would stay constant and the Edit Box can be used to give users easy access to the parts of the puzzle that have been solved and/or the guesses that have fallen short. This would take a lot of time out of browsing through 6 or 7 pages of posts that multiple puzzle topics usually get. Also, a last updated date on the outside of the Edit Box would be optimal. So instead of "Spoiler for" it would say something along the lines of "Edit Box for "solved puzzles and guesses" last updated 12:00am 5/2/2008" The problem I'm foreseeing is that this may be a pain in the butt for rookie to setup, but I don't know for sure. I also note that this is not necessary for the bulk of the user submitted New Puzzles, but I think it would come in handy for some of them. What are everyone's thoughts? Edit: typo

Let's have a Humble Contest! Who is the humblest riddler of them all?

I knew someone would say that about my post but you won't bait me into being a hypocrite.

I guess I'm not making myself clear when I keep repeating that I think life isGod. I'll explain it in a different way. We know and can prove life exists, which I think you would agree with. As far as I'm concerned, all of the descriptive attributes that can be applied to God can just as easily be applied to life, so I'm basically doing away with the unnecessary addition of something that is completely hypothetical. All the theories about life, evolution, the universe, the sciences, the past and future at least are partly based on fact, whereas God is based on nothing substantial. I'm not sure why you keep saying "blind naturalistic" either. I think evolution (not just man's, but all forms of evolution in and of the universe) is goal oriented, which I've said a few times now. How do you get "blind" out of that? I have no idea where the second part of #1 is coming from. This sounds more like your idea than mine. I'm not trying to have it "both ways" I only believe #2 which is the only example of the two that is actually quoted from my words.

OK, I didn't mean it had to do with LOTR or The Hobbit or The Silmirinian (in other words not Tolkien related), just that that particular guess was close in another way, which I'll keep to myself for now

I looked up butch and the only things it relates to are manly or gay women and of course their typical hairdos Edit: also a common dog name and let's not forget Mr. Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, but I couldn't make those fit

This is the closest guess so far. Try to pick out the key words located all over the riddle and they will guide you

Woah. What about all my posts that stated that I believe life is God? I believe life is it's own guiding intelligence. I suppose that would make life a divine marvel in and of itself, but not really, because we can see, prove and know it, even if we can't prove why it exists or for how long and for what purpose. Divine is usually pertaining to that which has no proof and relies solely on scripture and faith. I never said anything about an accident. In fact, I said the opposite (in the Hell existing thread) that life clearly does have a guiding principle that shows it is leading toward some goal involving thought, communication and extra-planetary travel (among other attributes evolution is leading the mind). I would call it a natural marvel to answer another one of your questions.

The point is that there is a 1 letter difference at the beginning and they don't rhyme. #9 is still up for grabs

I agree. That's why I never posted an experience on this thread. I think the idea is hypocritical. What good have you done? Now get your praise for it. -kinda throws humbleness out the window

Firstly, I think this theory is very interesting and frankly I'm still mulling it over. Secondly, I did get that impression from Duh Puck's first response as well. Sorry to team up on you, I just think that the answer (although very difficult to solve) lies in evolution. There are many instances where parts make up a whole and they are mostly all very complicated and to label them as a marvel of the divine just seems to be a cop out to me. Even if I were to agree that God made it, then there would still be a logical reason as to why it works that we can solve through study on Earth. Therefore, giving this hive/colony theory a divine attribute seems to me to be unnecessary. I loved the ants video btw.