>Stop some time and observe how many references to time are in daily conversations for example.

No need for such proof. Just ask a date arithmetic question here and watch the speed at which thread grows :)

>You and I 'see' or observe today or actually "right now". There's a very bright fellow by the name of Lambert Dolphin who has a web site at www.ldolphin.org. On that site is an interesting paper on the nature of time. Here's the link: http://www.ldolphin.org/time.html which I'd recommend for not-so-casual reading. <g>

I started reading it, but I'm probably already spoiled by American culture to read such a long piece ;). Even though I have the time at the present, I'm rather taking it to explore VFP 7 :)

>If you take it that all of the known universe is constructed of atoms and that they are in turn slowing down as a direct result of the notion of atomic half lifes and so forth then it is reasonable to postulate that time itself is actualy slowing down as well.

There's no referential system to notice the slowing of time against. Define "speed of time".

>Interestingly enough, in the Old Testament He reveals Himself as "I Am", not "I Was" or "I will be".

The article mentions the lack of tenses in Hebrew.

>The trouble is the anthropomorphising (sp? <g>) of God.

Well, that's what he gets for the courtesy of creating the humans in his own image :)

>>Promise of hell does sound like showing respect :)
>
>Respecting your choice does. The whole point is that no one HAS to go there. Only those who refuse God's love and forgiveness. Don't you reserve for yourself the right to associate with those whom you choose? Why would anyone want to deny God that same right?

Sounds like paradise is his private party, and the host has the right of discretion.

>No, actually it doesn't. All have no restraints whatsoever upon them either way. It's a simple matter of making what I would categorize (after looking at all the lternatives) as a very rational decision. Now, it involves this thing we call "faith" but the will to choose is the central component of that faith.

Exactly, chose to believe and ask for no proof. IOW, faith should be freely chosen, otherwise it becomes an oppressive system, as it was in medieval Europe.

>I guess then according to some I should just disappear. <g> I immensely enjoy rational discussions Dragan and as I mentioned I hope you will take this post in that light.

I'd rather discuss the matters over a dark (see my taglines). Know of someone who'd pay well to an old Fox in your area?

>Well, logic in the formal sense will always fail to lift man to God's level. Why? Well, what we call logic finds is genesis in the proposition that man has the "final say" as to what is logical or not.

Logic is just an empiric set of rules of thinking. It gives you a way to know when you're about to come to a conclusion which can be proven wrong by other means as well.

> It's axiomatic at that point that you have ruled God out of the picture and the best you can hope for is an enlarged view of man himself.

Other way 'round: axiomatic systems, like geometry or algebra, are based on axioms and logically follow from there. The sets of axioms consist of any number of sentences, from 4 to 40 (haven't seen any larger). A religious dogma, OTOH, does not need logic. The number of things which are taken as given is a set of books. Applying logic there gives you a couple of millenia of intellectual entertainment.

> Perhaps I should have used the word "reasonable" instead. In this case belief is the next 'reasonable' step after examoinign the evidence. That's a better way to make the statement. Thanks for catching it...

Examining the evidence, deciding you can't make heads or tails of it, and performing the quantum leap into believing, since the logic has failed? Might have happened in some cases.

>>Not so sure - avatars are expendable. I don't see how the master suffered what his emissary went through.
>
>Hoo boy... How much time do we have? <g>

Only the rest of our lives :)... or until a general consesnsus is achieved around here that we'd better both shut up :)

>Well, it's hard to communicate. This God will open your understanding to if you ask.

I don't believe it < g >.

>Understood I'm not trying to prove God's existence candidly. I'm answering what I consider some very good questions. I have no desire to be 'pushy' but I have an intense desire to explain these issues to anyone who has an interest.

OK, back to the point of logic being applied to dogma: how many people has god created?