Would it be possible to delete the margin on the left of the screen which appears when all the lines have at once one tabulation?

Nice, does it means that we can now run txt files directly from the documents menu now? I think mViewer did that with images and doing this with txt files would be cool, since sometimes you might want to quickly access your favorite game readme or school notes

We already were able to do so. The new thing is that the .cfg file is now automatically modified by the program.

Wow, so it would be a Mimas-Grammer app ?

I'm not sure where you are going with Jesus and his apostles.

Très bien, je n'ai pas réussi à m'exprimer en anglais, alors je vais le faire en français en espérant que tu connaisses cette langue et que cela te permette de mieux comprendre. Le cas non échéant, cela aidera peut-être d'autres personnes.

Ce que je voulais dire était que l'existence de Dieu n'est pas qu'une simple éventualité comme une autre, que pourrait formuler un gamin de 5 ans en inventant son propre monde. Ce n'est pas une simple théorie abstraite sans fait. C'est bien plus que cela. Ce n'est pas pour rien que Jésus a donné sa vie sur la croix, il fallait réellement une force d'amour gigantesque pour être capable de pardonner ses propres persécuteurs pendant même qu'ils effectuaient leur besogne. Il lui fallait une force d'amour immense pour convertir Simon qui autrefois persécutait les croyants en Pierre, qui a ensuite été persécuté à son tour et tué. L'expansion de la Bonne Nouvelle dès la résurrection s'est faite à une telle vitesse que l'on ne peut considérer cela comme anodin. Les premiers chrétiens persécutés tenaient nettement mieux que la moyenne et étaient animés d'un amour fou. Libre à chacun de croire bien évidemment, mais tout ça pour dire que le catholicisme est plus qu'une simple éventualité que les hommes ont inventé.

as for myself, it was studying the bible that led me to stop believing in it. i started out reading it believing exactly as you do, but, the more i read, the more obvious it seemed that it was not a contiguous whole but rather a big jumble of contradictory writings from hundreds of different authors. the jesus portrayed in the gospels is completely unlike the jesus described by his self-proclaimed disciple, paul. similarly, the world described in the old testament (complete with the Hades like She'ol etcetera) is completely unlike the one described by jesus, which, in turn is completely unlike the one described by paul, which, in turn, is completely unlike the one described by the catholic church and so on. there are little things all throughout as well, like jesus claiming that he would return before the last of his 12 disciples had died, that just don't work.

Ok, so you didn't understand the main principle of bible as many people, and I'm to try to make you understand.
In fact, the bible is a love story between humans and God. In the old testament, God is described by humans, and not God himself. Humans didn't understand well who God really was and for example associated diseases as a punishment given by God. As a case in point, when Adam and Eve left the garden of eden, God didn't excluded them, but they excluded themselves with their sins refusing to show themselves nude in front of God. But then Jesus came on the Earth to have a human communication and to change ideas about God. He didn't yell he was the son of God, that God was a good one and that romans were villains, but he made disciples understand by his being, his actions, and his parables. It would have been too brutal for humans to reveal them explicitly the truth. They had to understand progressively with heart. Then apostles translated love of God and how He changed their lifes. If you want to understand bible, you have to read it that way: with heart.

Everyone has their own version of what is paradise in their heads.

Some people don't have a version of paradise for one of the following reasons:

• They believe there's no paradise.
• They trust God and obey him to do good without thinking about a reward.

Because you are at perfection, because you cannot go higher, happiness ends. Change ends, motion stops. There is nowhere left to go because of that. To me, this is a really bad thing because ope itself comes from the prospect of achieving such a reality. But once you reach is, there's nowhere for hope to come from anymore since there is no imperfection to overcome.

And what if there's no time in paradise? All the problems you reach here disappear.

There's also a few things I have with the idea of intelligent design. If nothing existed before God, and God created everything, what was God's reason/motivation to create anything and what was His point of reference for creation? Because nothing existed, there would be nothing that could cause God to begin His creation. Conventional concepts such as boredom and discontent would not exist because there counterparts such as excitement would not exist either because there was nothing that could elicit such emotion.

What motivation? God doesn't need humans. But His infinite love created us. Though for humans it is really hard to understand that. When you talk about the beginning of creation, such concept doesn't exist because there was no time before.

In order for me to believe something, I require evidence; that's just how my mind works.

See my answer:

Really? So you have to believe in very few things. And you're doing as Pierre did. But since you need to believe to get the hard evidence in you, you're on an impasse.

I would not say that evolution and Christianity are equal in that they both are believed in by faith. Evolution is not blind faith; there is massive support and evidence for it.
Fine, evolution is a theory, but people often misinterpret "theory" for just a guess. A scientific theory actually very comprehensive and is tested and confirmed repeatedly. There is tons of evidence for evolution that can be seen in both living and dead creatures.

Religions are also confirmed in the time. The real difference between science and religions is that sciences are practiced with the brain, and religions with the heart.

Also, theists frequently say that there must be a first cause to start everything, so therefore it must be God.
Even if there is some supernatural creator to set the universe in motion, how do you know that it is the Christian god? It could be any other supernatural being.
I also find that this is somewhat saying, "Science doesn't know, therefore God."
If we don't know something, it isn't very reasonable to conclude that it must be because of God. I'd instead rather search harder and attempt to find an explanation that can actually be supported.

Even if an explanation can never be found by science, I'd rather leave that gap of knowledge empty as opposed to filling it with religion

Ok, the need of everything to be caused isn't an argument for saying that God exists, and then? Moreover, religion doesn't fill a gap left by science since their domains are not the same at all. Even if God existed, we could explain all with science. Science says how, religions say why.

As a generalization, Christians believe that they are the only religion and that all other religions are completely false.  They feel they will be the ones to live while everyone else suffers in H E double hockey sticks.  Zero tolerance...
At Muslims have some sort of respect for Christianity because of the same sort of belief in one supreme being.

It is a real generalization. And I don't know where you find your statistics, but it is completely false. Catholics really respect other religions. And when you speak about "They feel they will be the ones to live while everyone else suffers in H E double hockey sticks", I think you're confounding christians with some sects that use bible to have some credibility.

Religion in general, however, is silly.

We use it like myths to explain things we really can't.  We use it only when it suits us and when we feel like we need something to make us feel better.

See my answer upon about "things we can't explain". And maybe you need yourself something to feel better, when you couldn't accept that a superior being could exist. So it is not an argument.

Quote from: mdr1 on May 21, 2013, 04:52:12 pm

When you're speaking about logic, what is logic about the big bang the appears from nowhere ? It's impossible, it must have an origin. Nothing can be its own origine.

This is quite strange to me when a page or two back you said:

Quote from: mdr1

God lives forever and fromever, that's all. There's no origin to his life. He invented time, so you can't apply to him this notion.

These two statements seem contradictory to me. You say that God has no origin and has always existed. Yet you state that the big bang could not simply have just happened, nor could it have created itself. You also say that everything must have an origin. Why is it acceptable for one thing but not the other?

Those two statements are not contradicory: it is true that big bang must have an origin because it is in time and it has a beginning. God doesn't have beginning. So he doesn't have origin.


I noticed a new point emerging to this debate: a thing could create itself, magic could take place on the reasons of the world etc. I don't think that saying that is really interesting: maybe those things could be said on the topic My existencial Phylosophy where we can doubt everything:

Are you saying that to convince us that you do exist ? How could we trust in you because you say that you could believe that we don't exist ?

Moreover, how can you be sure that you really exist ? Isn't it an illusion ? As a case in point, AI in computer games have the illusion that they exist, but it is not true.

But here, if we start to doubt everything, we cannot debate more.

In science, all proof is based on what we think is true. A lot of the theories in science either have their proof based on other theories, or just seem to 'work' in formulas, but aren't fully proven. When you look at it that way, you can see science as a religion, in which you have to believe in the not (fully) proven theories, and in the mathematics that connects and 'proves' those theories.

Nope, simply because religions and sciences are not in contradiction. Sciences and religions are not at all the same thing.

how the god was created, they won't be able to give a good answer."

because God wasn't created as I said. :p

Probably the main difference between science and religion is that science has some applications in our current lives, while religion is often mostly based on the afterlife.

Religion is not only based on the afterlife. It does have applications on the present.

Ok, fine. So he was always there? Or just appeared? But it doesn't really matter anyway. I just threw that into the mix because I thought it would be an interesting alternative.
That's all it will be anyway - potentially interesting thoughts. None of it can be verified.

The concept of something creating itself is interesting, right? Well at least I think so.

He couldn't appear because according to the religious, He's the inventor of the time. So He was "always" here.
And you're theory isn't really interesting because it's impossible. A think can't create itself, since it has to already exist to do so.

Let me rephrase myself. First of all I'm a science man, so this discussion will certainly call off (possibly big) conflicts/disagreements.
 Science is there to uncover the 'truth' of our universe.

Science won't call off "conflicts/disagreements". But you put clear that "Science is there to uncover the 'truth' of our universe". Moreover, the universe created by God, according to the religion.

You cannot deny that we are pretty good with doing that. We have explained a lot already and I'm sure we'll be able to explain a lot more (and with that comes the ever growing bubble of not knowing but that's a different subject for a different time...) in the future. Now I can go write an essay here or I can just say it. Lots of things (pretty much all) that has been labled 'divine' or 'Gods work' in the past has been explained by science. Like I said before, I will not deny neither acknowledge the existence God. If there is such a thing as heaven or if it turns out I was wrong in the end, then so be it. I can accept that. But for now, as long as science keeps on doing groundbreaking discoveries as well as explaining things, I will not change the point of view stated here.

What's the problem with "science's explanations" ? Does it prove that it isn't God's work ? We can explain how we live with biologie, and give theories to the beginning of universe, this doesn't prove God didn't do it. Science explains how, religions say why. That's all.

If there is a God, don't you think it would be logic that he wants His creation to do what He wants, and that they love Him(like He loves them) out of free will.

The logic doesn't take place here. Would it be logic that the powerfull God give to humans his only son, and that his really loved son let himself be crucified? No. It doesn't make sense to give such a present to humans who are filled of evil. The reason of that : his infinite love.

You can't expect God to come to everybody every generation again to prove His existence. That would make him mad. Jesus said to Thomas, since he didn't believe he had raised from the dead before seeing Him(John 20:29):
"Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

His coming in the past wasn't a proof at all, because he appeared resurrected to only a few people.