God and logic

Trippy discussions of moral issues, conspiracy theories, the paranormal and other otherworldly phenomenon.

Moderator: Dracofrost

God and logic

Postby Gigafrost » Mon Jul 21, 2003 2:32 pm

I was thinking about the statement "maybe God isn't limited by logic" and realized something sorta important about it. Usually, this argument is used to discredit logical analysis of our definition of God (which shows contradictions within the definition and thus the impossibility of a being described *exactly* that way), however I think the argument can turn around and bite people sticking to the definition rigidly.

Here's the general idea...let's say God is omniscient; all-seeing. If god isn't limited by logic then this statement is just as false as it is true. If it isn't true, though, then it's not the definition of God. The point is, if God isn't limited by logic then we can't define God...we can't even say that God isn't limited by logic, since that's also a definition. So, saying that is basically throwing any definition of God out the window. Sticking to the definition means that the definition can be analyzed.

Now, there's a philosopher who talked about us killing God. It's sort of related to this - he's arguing that if God is supposed to be above us in every way then we're killing it by having an understanding of God. We're doing to God what we do to cars - we're giving them human features that they don't necessarily really have. In the case of a car, this is making the car out to be more than it is. In the case of God, though, this is essentially destroying it. If God is really above everything then we can't say that God is this or that...that would mean that people who define God are destroying God just as much as people who try to prove it doesn't exist.

Anyways, I'll just wrap this up. Don't make me start on stupid people's stupid understanding of evolution to "disprove" evolution and "prove" God's existance.
User avatar
Gigafrost
Frost Weapon
Frost Weapon
 
Posts: 4900
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 5:09 pm
Location: Here

Postby TerraFrost » Mon Jul 21, 2003 5:34 pm

I was thinking about the statement "maybe God isn't limited by logic" and realized something sorta important about it.


the only time i've ever seen anything like this was in that one post i made about it... who else said it?

If god isn't limited by logic then this statement is just as false as it is true.


actually, i'm gonna disagree with this statement. logic is nothing more then a set of rules that, in essence, state how a statement can be transformed to another statement. it's what happens when you try to prove a -> b. saying that god is omniscent is like just saying a. it doesn't involve logic, nor does it need logic.

The point is, if God isn't limited by logic then we can't define God...we can't even say that God isn't limited by logic, since that's also a definition.


of course, you're using logic to deduce this - if you throw out logic, you can't even logically make an if then clause :lila:

So, saying that is basically throwing any definition of God out the window. Sticking to the definition means that the definition can be analyzed.


again, i disagree. analysis doesn't mean that you know the definition means. analysis means you can connect a to b. for example... the fundamentale basis of science may well be fundamentally flawed. science assumes that what is true here is true everywhere, in a manner of speaking. you can't deduce that - only "induce" it, heh. you can no more anaylize that assumption then you can analyize god's existence.

Now, there's a philosopher who talked about us killing God. It's sort of related to this - he's arguing that if God is supposed to be above us in every way then we're killing it by having an understanding of God. We're doing to God what we do to cars - we're giving them human features that they don't necessarily really have. In the case of a car, this is making the car out to be more than it is. In the case of God, though, this is essentially destroying it. If God is really above everything then we can't say that God is this or that...that would mean that people who define God are destroying God just as much as people who try to prove it doesn't exist.


i disagree with this, too, heh. if god is that which is all-seeing, all-knowing, and all-powerful, then... what are those things? what is it to be all-knowing or all-powerful? if you don't know what it is to be those things, then how do you know what God is? if you wanted to write a god checking program, for example, you would probably want to make it so it checks to see if god is all those things, but... how do you check to see god is all those things? how do you know that what you see is all powerful, and not just vastly more powerful then you? and even then... what makes someone more powerful then someone else? my point being that you can only limit something if you can program a function that is true under certain *predefined* conditions.

in math, there's the concept of relative primes... likewise, i would argue that there can be a concept of relative gods, sorta. author c. clarke once said that anyone with sufficiently advanced technology can appear to be a god. considering that, if we ever saw anything that looked like god, we could not say for sure whether or not it really was god, or just some ultra advanced alien race. if you can never say *definitivly* something is god, you can't limit god.

Anyways, I'll just wrap this up. Don't make me start on stupid people's stupid understanding of evolution to "disprove" evolution and "prove" God's existance.


i completly agree with this. and not only do these people not have a firm grip on evolution - they don't have a firm grip on the fundamentals of science, as a whole.
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby Gigafrost » Mon Jul 21, 2003 6:40 pm

the only time i've ever seen anything like this was in that one post i made about it... who else said it?

It's been said a few times at CR.

actually, i'm gonna disagree with this statement. logic is nothing more then a set of rules that, in essence, state how a statement can be transformed to another statement. it's what happens when you try to prove a -> b. saying that god is omniscent is like just saying a. it doesn't involve logic, nor does it need logic.

Actually, saying that God is omniscient is also saying that the definition of God includes omnisciense. Likewise, saying the definition of God includes omnisciense is also saying God is omniscient. The statement is "transformed," in essence, following even your own definition of logic.

Also, logic isn't rules for transforming sentences. Logic is the analysis of truth. The ability to change sentences is merely a result of being able to construct tautologies. God being omniscient is tautologious with omnisciense being a part of the definition of God...or rather, omnisciense is contained within the definition and that is why the statement is a tautology.

of course, you're using logic to deduce this - if you throw out logic, you can't even logically make an if then clause :lila:

Of course, you're using logic to disprove what I said about God, so your statement would have to be thrown out too. :lila:

But then again, you seem to have missed the fact that I WAS APPLYING LOGIC TO THE DEFINITION AND NOT GOD ITSELF. If God is above logic, because the definition of God includes omnisciense, God having that property would be a logical tautology, but if God is above logic then we can't really say that God has that ability...IE, THE STATEMENT ITSELF IS NEITHER TRUE NOR FALSE. Again, notice that this applies ONLY TO THE STATEMENT: if the statement is true then God has ~, if the statement is false then God has ~. It doesn't matter what God has, the statement doesn't change that. The statement cannot be used to describe God, then.

again, i disagree. analysis doesn't mean that you know the definition means. analysis means you can connect a to b. for example... the fundamentale basis of science may well be fundamentally flawed. science assumes that what is true here is true everywhere, in a manner of speaking. you can't deduce that - only "induce" it, heh. you can no more anaylize that assumption then you can analyize god's existence.

Yes you can analyze it. You can analyze false things. Analysis does *NOT* mean the connection of one thing to another. Analysis could mean that, but that is only 1 incredibly limited definition of it. Try this other definition which fits the bill much more nicely: "separation of a whole into its component parts"

Regardless of whether we understand the ENTIRE definition of God or not, the definition can be seperated into smaller parts, since it is designed in parts. While God might be above logic, the DEFINITIONS and UNDERSTANDINGS are NOT.

i disagree with this, too, heh. if god is that which is all-seeing, all-knowing, and all-powerful, then... what are those things? what is it to be all-knowing or all-powerful? if you don't know what it is to be those things, then how do you know what God is?

How can you disagree and yet prove my point? How can we know? WE CAN'T, YET WE'RE DEFINING IT ANYWAYS.

in math, there's the concept of relative primes... likewise, i would argue that there can be a concept of relative gods, sorta. author c. clarke once said that anyone with sufficiently advanced technology can appear to be a god. considering that, if we ever saw anything that looked like god, we could not say for sure whether or not it really was god, or just some ultra advanced alien race. if you can never say *definitivly* something is god, you can't limit god.
But people worship God and come up with their own understandings of God. If God turns out to not fit their definitions, that still does not change the fact that God is being killed. You seem to be making it out to be that God loses some sort of power or something. The idea is more like our ideas of God are becoming screwed up and limited. We're worshipping a God that is more and more "human." Regardless of whether aliens pretend to be a God or not, people who worship God would just say "oh, that's not God" and continue to worship the God. Perhaps it'd be better to think of it as changing the God you worship without really thinking you have.
User avatar
Gigafrost
Frost Weapon
Frost Weapon
 
Posts: 4900
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 5:09 pm
Location: Here

Postby TerraFrost » Mon Jul 21, 2003 7:10 pm

Regardless of whether we understand the ENTIRE definition of God or not, the definition can be seperated into smaller parts, since it is designed in parts. While God might be above logic, the DEFINITIONS and UNDERSTANDINGS are NOT.


if we can not understand the *entire* definition of god, then, isn't it possible that there are other words for which we can not understand the *entire* definition, as well? i would argue that some of those other words are the very words used to describe and define (albiet partially) god. likewise, if one word can be above logic (in this case, the word being god), why can't other words be above logic? in this case, the words used to define god?

EDIT: an alternative explanation would be... say x and y are unknowns. you know that there is a relationship between x and y, but that relationship doesn't tell you anything about x in relation to reality, or y in relation to reality. kinda like in a tautology... the fact that there is a relationship doesn't state anything about the truth value of the premises, or about the conclusion. similarily, the truth value of the premises doesn't invalidate the tautology. so just as logic can tell us that there is a relationship between two things, but not tell us specifically about those two things, we can know god is certain things, without really knowing anything about those two things.

How can you disagree and yet prove my point? How can we know? WE CAN'T, YET WE'RE DEFINING IT ANYWAYS.


just as you're saying we can't understand god, i'm saying we can't understand our definition. if i'm understanding your argument correctly, you're saying that if we say god = all-powerfull, all-seeing, all-knowing, and because we don't know what the left hand side of the equation means, we can't possible assign any values to it... and my rebuttle to that is that we also don't know what the right hand side means, either. god could well be all those things, but i don't believe we know what those things are anymore then we know what god is. we wouldn't know god if we saw it, and we wouldn't know any of those things, if we saw them.

But people worship God and come up with their own understandings of God.


i would counter this by first saying that people probably are not going to understand their "understandings". to elaborate, they can understand god in realation to god, but they can't understand him in relation to everything else that's not god, and... that's what true understanding is, imho.

also, i don't 100% see the significance of this, anyways. people can define god however they want. individual definitions may well be wrong, but... we can't argue every single definition every single individual might have. the only definition we can argue is a common definition, which i have been assuming for the purposes of this thread to be "god is all-powerful, all-seeing, and all knowing", and... i don't see anything wrong with that definition.
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby Gigafrost » Mon Jul 21, 2003 7:53 pm

if we can not understand the *entire* definition of god, then, isn't it possible that there are other words for which we can not understand the *entire* definition, as well? i would argue that some of those other words are the very words used to describe and define (albiet partially) god. likewise, if one word can be above logic (in this case, the word being god), why can't other words be above logic? in this case, the words used to define god?

The word God isn't supposed to be above logic. The entity which the word represents is supposed to be. While we can misunderstand the entire definition, possibly because of individual elements we don't understand, that does not automatically make the statement completely unanalysable.

So, you seem to be under the misinterpretation that words can be above logic. The ability for a word to transcend logic would be contained in the word itself. All-seeing does not include the ability to transcend logic. All-good does not either. The ability to transcend logic is neither a part of seeing or a part of being good. The only word in the definition of God that could possibly transcend the bounds of logic would be omnipotence. Even the definition that says "is above logic" is still subject to logic.

Now, I can already hear the argument echoing again that we can't know what some of these things are, but that's not entirely the case. Sure, it's possible that we can't know what it is, but we *can* know what it isn't. For that matter, we can even speculate what this involves.

just as you're saying we can't understand god, i'm saying we can't understand our definition. if i'm understanding your argument correctly, you're saying that if we say god = all-powerfull, all-seeing, all-knowing, and because we don't know what the left hand side of the equation means, we can't possible assign any values to it... and my rebuttle to that is that we also don't know what the right hand side means, either. god could well be all those things, but i don't believe we know what those things are anymore then we know what god is. we wouldn't know god if we saw it, and we wouldn't know any of those things, if we saw them.

I doubt it. It's pretty much our understanding that's changing and killing God. I never said anything about the left-hand side.

i would counter this by first saying that people probably are not going to understand their "understandings". to elaborate, they can understand god in realation to god, but they can't understand him in relation to everything else that's not god, and... that's what true understanding is, imho.

And part of the problem of "killing" God would be people coming to an "understanding" of God, especially a WRONG understanding.

Let's take the idea of evolution. Let's say that everybody has an idea of what it is, but almost everybody suddenly gets this terribly wrong and stupid idea that isn't really what evolution is. The problem isn't that evolution doesn't work or doesn't exist, the problem is we're "killing" it...the ability for it to be understood or observed or worshipped, and this is because our definition has become screwed up. The idea is similar to God...our definitions and understandings are becoming so screwy that there's no way that we can sort through it and find a possible real God.

Again, you've said you disagreed but again proved my point.

also, i don't 100% see the significance of this, anyways. people can define god however they want. individual definitions may well be wrong, but... we can't argue every single definition every single individual might have. the only definition we can argue is a common definition, which i have been assuming for the purposes of this thread to be "god is all-powerful, all-seeing, and all knowing", and... i don't see anything wrong with that definition.
I suppose there's no real significance to it now. At the beginning of the thread the entire point was that by adding and changing definitions we're killing God. By adding that God is above logic we become unable to logically analyze God so we can't establish traits because that's a logical connection. So, in essence, the God that was previously designed can no longer be accurately described that way.
User avatar
Gigafrost
Frost Weapon
Frost Weapon
 
Posts: 4900
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 5:09 pm
Location: Here

Postby TerraFrost » Mon Jul 21, 2003 8:53 pm

The word God isn't supposed to be above logic. The entity which the word represents is supposed to be. While we can misunderstand the entire definition, possibly because of individual elements we don't understand, that does not automatically make the statement completely unanalysable.

So, you seem to be under the misinterpretation that words can be above logic. The ability for a word to transcend logic would be contained in the word itself. All-seeing does not include the ability to transcend logic. All-good does not either. The ability to transcend logic is neither a part of seeing or a part of being good. The only word in the definition of God that could possibly transcend the bounds of logic would be omnipotence. Even the definition that says "is above logic" is still subject to logic.


so it seems that you're saying that words are as pointers to objects (for others reading this thread, this is a reference to java and programming, in general). pointers are bound by logic, but that which they point to (the objects) may not be. atleast, this is the case with god. why can't this be the case with other stuff?

now i will concede that omnipotence is the only quality that could be above logic... but in that case, the definition of god as being all-powerful, all-seeing, all-knowing could still be valid... and whether or not the "is above logic" part of the definition is really above logic or not, that which it points to may very well be, just as it is for god.

Now, I can already hear the argument echoing again that we can't know what some of these things are, but that's not entirely the case. Sure, it's possible that we can't know what it is, but we *can* know what it isn't. For that matter, we can even speculate what this involves.


of course, knowing what something is and knowing what something isn't are two very different things.

Let's take the idea of evolution. Let's say that everybody has an idea of what it is, but almost everybody suddenly gets this terribly wrong and stupid idea that isn't really what evolution is. The problem isn't that evolution doesn't work or doesn't exist, the problem is we're "killing" it...the ability for it to be understood or observed or worshipped, and this is because our definition has become screwed up. The idea is similar to God...our definitions and understandings are becoming so screwy that there's no way that we can sort through it and find a possible real God.


just because people come up with new ideas doesn't mean the ideas are wrong. now, if the ideas are the opposite of the previous ideas, well... one of them is wrong, but... i'm not aware of any such change when it comes to the definition of god... atleast with the definition i'm using for this debate.

I suppose there's no real significance to it now. At the beginning of the thread the entire point was that by adding and changing definitions we're killing God. By adding that God is above logic we become unable to logically analyze God so we can't establish traits because that's a logical connection. So, in essence, the God that was previously designed can no longer be accurately described that way.


your philosophy class seems to have been more thorough then mine. we never talked about abduction, deduction, or induction in my philosophy class, so... it's also possible that i'm just not aware of any such change in definitions, but... if your only example of a "change" is that of omnipotence being extended to include the ability to defy logic, then... it seems to me that that's the very thing we're discussing, in this thread...

but i'll try to sorta remake my arguments. you're saying that we can't logically analyze god because we can't establish traits through a logical connection... but the problem is... not all connections are logical, so... why should this one be? granted, the connections may be made of things that can be deduced with logic, but... the connections, themselve, don't always have to be logical. for example... emotional connections... there may be no logical reason why someone fears something - they may just fear it. not everything connection has to be made through logic. if you believe that - that every connection has to be a logical one, then... it seems to me as if you would also believe in predetermination, or... fate, as it were. after all, if the connection between the past and future is always logical, then how could it be anything different then what logic dictates it is, lest it defy logic? of course, the interesting thing about fate is... to many, that is highly suggestive of some higher power - of "god" as it were... if you don't control your own life, who does? of course, an athiest would say that nothing does, to which a religious person would reply... if nothing is controlling my life, then can't i live it as i see fit? and the argument goes on and on...

likewise, i don't think that we can ever truely know whether or not god exists - i don't think we can disprove his existence, or disprove it...
Last edited by TerraFrost on Tue Jul 22, 2003 12:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby Roadkill » Mon Jul 21, 2003 9:20 pm

the most mind boggling definition of god. "Thou art god!" as Michael Valentine Smith says it.

please proceed to beat you rhead on the wall now :p

j/k

If that is the definition of god, then everything is god. Or rather, as i have come to figure out, every living thing is god. Notice how any living creature interacts with others of its kind. As a sort of system.

For starters, we'll use ants. ants are small little creatures. It uses the same old model of hierarchy we humans tend to use; highest, higher, lower lowest - or in the case of ants: queen, the winged dudes, the female workers, the males. The queen is the system core, which breeds out new ants. In reality, it has no real control over its units. The winged ones... they hold relative control i think, though it isn’t really anything. Actually, im pretty sure even those dudes have their own specific goal, which i hear is to travel and plant new nests. The queen is the core, and is absolutely programmed -- once it settles in, it has one defined goal. The winged ones, they have a goal, though not as defined. The females, they are the most adaptable. I am not sure if they are born programmed (like one will help build hte nest its entire life, and a food gatherer will always be a food gatherer), but it seems more likely they were adaptable. The males, they just fertilize and die. Thus this would actually put females higher in survivability. But the programming is always the same, in which the ants quickly scurry around, find the target, give chemical scent trails to lead others, build, etc. If one is doing something, it steps out of the way, they dont help each other really, they just work on their own in a system. These ants aren’t entirely the same species, yet their whole system works exactly like a computer. it gets even more complex with those ants that have relationships with certain trees and such.

God is the system in which these creatures interact together as a system. Even humans, we have our own system. Rather than having a head honcho, we work most of this in our brain, and make our own system so automatically we don’t even know it. A good system, they don’t have to communicate at all because each ‘program’ (us) has all the data to predict what the other will do effectively, and there is only needed a few people in the center (or just one) to ensure that the programs predictions about its counterparts is correct. A boss doesn’t really need to be a boss, he just corrects incorrect predictions and makes a mental not of his failure later. But so does the program in certain cases.

An ant isn’t a god alone, and nor is a human. A god is the system where these things interact.

Thus god controls everything.

People assume he is a good god, because basically these are living things he controls, and life is thought of as agood thing.

God isn’t above logic. Because we try to apply logic to these individual organisms, we often come out with skewed results. Math deals with systems and understands them with numbers, or tries too. So it is likely that we can begin to understand these systems at some point. Heck, Douglas Adams may have been right after all about the Earth being a big giant computer.

Don’t ask for how I come up with this. I don’t quite have the answer to that yet. :lila
Image
<center>The secret's in the wings...
User avatar
Roadkill
Heroic Guard
 
Posts: 2847
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 5:18 am
Location: somewhere

Postby Roadkill » Wed Jul 23, 2003 11:44 am

i vin! ^_^
Roadkill, please restrain yourself from double posting, especially just to add a sentance. If you have something more to say, and nobody has replied yet, just edit your own post. Thank you, and good day.
Image
<center>The secret's in the wings...
User avatar
Roadkill
Heroic Guard
 
Posts: 2847
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 5:18 am
Location: somewhere

Postby Apollo » Fri Aug 22, 2003 11:18 pm

I would just like to point out that human brains can not fully comprhend things with out limits, because our lifes are based on limits, such as the laws of physics.
User avatar
Apollo
Elite Guard
 
Posts: 1127
Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 5:13 pm
Location: hell on earth

Postby Gigafrost » Sat Aug 23, 2003 1:22 am

You can say this, but really it seems more like an assumption rather than a proof. We can define infinity, and we can also understand what it means. Infinity has no limit. How, then, would we be able to comprehend a concept that explains that there is no highest number, that you can merely add 1 to any number you're given to have a bigger number?

If you're saying we simply can't comprehend every number at the same time...well, duh. We aren't smart because we consider everything at once...we're smart because we can analyze parts. In addition, we can also determine what doesn't go into an infinite concept.

So, with these capabilities in hand, we are quite capable of looking at things we don't entirely understand, even things we can't entirely comprehend. For example: just because we can't fully comprehend how the human body works doesn't mean we can't understand parts of it.
User avatar
Gigafrost
Frost Weapon
Frost Weapon
 
Posts: 4900
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 5:09 pm
Location: Here

Postby Spudgun » Sat Aug 23, 2003 5:14 am

i heard a good idea once,

"so you dont believe in god, thats fine, ill keep praying, if im wrong then i die and nothing happens, if im right, you go to hell and i dont"

then i thought about this

if god was really all knowing and all seeing then why would there be a hell?

why would god (the all forgiving god) send you to a place of torment? seems to me that god would fix the souls of the mass murderers and their victims, put them together in a way that showed each of them the true intentions of the other, explained everything and allowed us to forgive each other or at least understand what each other were trying to do.

as another friend once said "most of the evil things in the world are done for a good reason.. or because the person doing them thinks its for a good reason"


ah well, we die... we live because were scared to die, lol
User avatar
Spudgun
Traveler
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 6:40 am

Postby TerraFrost » Sat Aug 23, 2003 6:17 am

"so you dont believe in god, thats fine, ill keep praying, if im wrong then i die and nothing happens, if im right, you go to hell and i dont"


that's called pascal's wager. a counter i once saw to it was... what do you think god would do to you if your faith was but a lie?

as for there being a hell, and bad people existing in the world... my own personal counter to this would be... if god is all powerful, he has the power to defy logic, so... you can't disprove he exists with logic. of course, you also can't prove he exists, with logic, but... there aren't a whole lot of people trying to prove he exists in this thread, so that last point is kinda useless, hehe :)
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby Spudgun » Sat Aug 23, 2003 6:26 am

hehe, score, i still think god would choose to heal over condemning.

if you was walking down a street and saw a bird that was dying and you knew instantly the bird was beyond help but was suffering, so you decided to kill it and the best way to do that swiftly was to stamp on its head. As you stamp on the bird's head somebody else walks around the corner and from a distance sees what appears to them to be you stamping on a bird for no reason, would they be wrong to dislike you?

as far as they are concerned you just did something evil.

i dont mean this example literally, but imagine god having an all seeing viewpoint.

i think the same is true for killers etc, to them they are doing something they see as right, to the rest of the people they are doing something which appears totally wrong, a god with an all seeing perspective would surely choose to show everyone the "truth" instead of just persecuting them.

MEEP!
User avatar
Spudgun
Traveler
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 6:40 am

Postby Roadkill » Sat Aug 23, 2003 1:23 pm

well, consider this. (which is one of the main reasons i dont really agree with this thought)

Why does a pie taste good? Is it because it just does, or because you dont have it often? If you had an apple pie all the time, dont you think it would be refreshing to try a plain apple?

in heaven, you are supposed to relax in comfort for eternity. Eternity is a long time, me thinks. Especially when you are always eating apple pies. Comforts are good, but how good can sex or books or play be if you do it all the time? As a human, we need problems to solve, and rise above. Well, not rise above, because that would be meaningless if you could not fall below. How do we do this? why is it doing that? As a human, i like to handle these things, because they fight against blandness quite easily.

Hell, you have the same problem. You can be whipped, you can be dipped in lava, you could be bitten all over all the time, but in the end its all the same. Just as you get used to the taste of apple pie, so too will you get used to the feel of the heat. In fact, if hell offers those problems to solve for all eternity, send me there instead of to heaven.

To be enjoying heaven the whole time you are there, they would have to alter your mind and sole. Make you inhuman. Perhaps even not living (in the sense that you no longer act like a living thing in the worst way).
Image
<center>The secret's in the wings...
User avatar
Roadkill
Heroic Guard
 
Posts: 2847
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 5:18 am
Location: somewhere

Postby Apollo » Sat Aug 23, 2003 9:01 pm

Or mabe heaven changes and theirs some thing new everday debending on if you want it to.
User avatar
Apollo
Elite Guard
 
Posts: 1127
Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 5:13 pm
Location: hell on earth

Next

Return to Twilight Zone

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron