Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Nuuudzzz Bank

Wish I knew about this thread sooner. I’ve always wondered what some of the people here look like.

I do feel kind of left out. I don’t have a transformation. I was a skinny kid, but blew up from puberty and been pretty solid ever since. Graduated high school weighing about 195 pounds, finally bulked up to about 240, still pretty lean, but it’s taken about 8 years.
 
Jeremyk1 said:
Wish I knew about this thread sooner. I’ve always wondered what some of the people here look like.

I do feel kind of left out. I don’t have a transformation. I was a skinny kid, but blew up from puberty and been pretty solid ever since. Graduated high school weighing about 195 pounds, finally bulked up to about 240, still pretty lean, but it’s taken about 8 years.
Click to expand...
Well post it up, and show everyone where you came from and where you are now
 
Something is happening in your latest pics, filling out, it seems. Could it be the TRT -or to early to tell?
 
BEAST73 said:
Invalid Link Removed


Invalid Link Removed


Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

Just saw this sorry I'm late to the party.
Anyway these pictures do not accurately represent the theistic argument of first cause.

Theistic argument or the kalam cosmological argument as it is sometimes called states that anything that begins to exist has to have a creator. The universe as we now know thanks to the first and second law of thermodynamics had a beginning.

Naturally something cannot come from nothing. However the universe is something, and if it can't come from nothing naturally then something outside of nature, (that's what supernatural means) caused the universe. This great first cause is what monotheistic religions call God.

In short, you can't get something from nothing,because we exist something always existed, that something has to be infinite and outside of our universe, that something is God. The monotheistic God has no beginning and no end, he always was and will be, therefore he is not a created thing.
 
Codybenz said:
Just saw this sorry I'm late to the party.
Anyway these pictures do not accurately represent the theistic argument of first cause.

Theistic argument or the kalam cosmological argument as it is sometimes called states that anything that begins to exist has to have a creator. The universe as we now know thanks to the first and second law of thermodynamics had a beginning.

Naturally something cannot come from nothing. However the universe is something, and if it can't come from nothing naturally then something outside of nature, (that's what supernatural means) caused the universe. This great first cause is what monotheistic religions call God.

In short, you can't get something from nothing,because we exist something always existed, that something has to be infinite and outside of our universe, that something is God. The monotheistic God has no beginning and no end, he always was and will be, therefore he is not a created thing.
Click to expand...

You have to define "nothing" first.
Invalid Link Removed
 
Codybenz said:
Just saw this sorry I'm late to the party.
Anyway these pictures do not accurately represent the theistic argument of first cause.

Theistic argument or the kalam cosmological argument as it is sometimes called states that anything that begins to exist has to have a creator. The universe as we now know thanks to the first and second law of thermodynamics had a beginning.

Naturally something cannot come from nothing. However the universe is something, and if it can't come from nothing naturally then something outside of nature, (that's what supernatural means) caused the universe. This great first cause is what monotheistic religions call God.

In short, you can't get something from nothing,because we exist something always existed, that something has to be infinite and outside of our universe, that something is God. The monotheistic God has no beginning and no end, he always was and will be, therefore he is not a created thing.
Click to expand...

I have died and came back alive since this post..
 
hairygrandpa said:
You have to define "nothing" first.
Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

That is correct HGP. Nothing is what rocks dream of.

No space, no time, no matter.

If you ask someone what is in an empty mason jar they would say nothing. But that's not true. Even the empty space inside is something
 
Codybenz said:
That is correct HGP. Nothing is what rocks dream of.

No space, no time, no matter.

If you ask someone what is in an empty mason jar they would say nothing. But that's not true. Even the empty space inside is something
Click to expand...

Let me blow your mind.
If "nothing" was first, who created "nothing" -and from what?

See? :)

Also, define: "outside space and time". I want to know where exactly it is.
 
hairygrandpa said:
Let me blow your mind.
If "nothing" was first, who created "nothing" -and from what?

See? :)

Also, define: "outside space and time". I want to know where exactly it is.
Click to expand...

My mind is never blown on this topic brother. We can go as deep as you want. It would be my pleasure.

First let me say your definition of nothing is wrong again when you say "if nothing was first" nothing is not something, it is in fact the absense of anything, there is a difference. Thus the phrase often used, "nothing is what rocks dream of."

When the word nothing is talked about in the first cause argument it simply refers only to our space time continuim. Our physical universe at some point in time did not exist, space, matter, time, and even the physical laws such as gravity did not exist at some point. There was an absense of anything.

As far as outside of space and time, that actually doesn't always refer to a specific place although it could. It is often used to describe someone, in this case God who is not effected or restrained by the laws governing this universe.

Supernatural= outside or above nature.

So in this case it isn't a where, it is a who.
 
Basically the atheist and the theist has to deal with the logical fact that something somehow is infinite and always has existed. The problem for atheist/naturalist is that they believe nothing exist outside of nature and this universe. The minute they do they believe in something supernatural, which goes against there worldview.
 
We only have examples of something. We lack an example for nothing. The observation: something comes from something, is true. The premise something can't come from nothing is not true, as we have no knowledge of true nothingness.

Another problem is, when you say "nothing", it shouldn't be: "nothing + god".
 
Codybenz said:
Basically the atheist and the theist has to deal with the logical fact that something somehow is infinite and always has existed. The problem for atheist/naturalist is that they believe nothing exist outside of nature and this universe. The minute they do they believe in something supernatural, which goes against there worldview.
Click to expand...

Nah. I don't agree. See, I'm an agnostic (to avoid the "what do I not believe issue", don't call me atheist).
Is a multiverse supernatural? Its outside our local universe and could be very well the cause for ours. Isn't it a better statement to say : "I don't know" -instead of : "god did it".?

The : "I don't know" statement was less embarrassing in the past, when science progressed and explained the god of the rain and thunder away.
 
hairygrandpa said:
Nah. I don't agree. See, I'm an agnostic (to avoid the "what do I not believe issue", don't call me atheist).
Is a multiverse supernatural? Its outside our local universe and could be very well the cause for ours. Isn't it a better statement to say : "I don't know" -instead of : "god did it".?

The : "I don't know" statement was less embarrassing in the past, when science progressed and explained the god of the rain and thunder away.
Click to expand...

I actually did not start it, but I did respond really really late. Lol

There is nothing wrong with being an agnostic, however I believe if you take all the evidence it points to a creator. The first cause argument is only one argument. You have to take all the evidence together and make a decision.

The fine tuning argument, the moral law argument, purpose in nature argument, etc.

And as far as science is concerned, the more it advances the more it aligns with theological views. Such as the beginning of the universe, popular science up until a few hundred years ago believed in a steady state universe where as the Bible stated it had a clear beginning. Science finally caught up.

Now it did do away with the God of the gaps and a lot of superstitions but hasn't even come close to getting rid of a theistic worldview.

It's why a lot of atheistic scientist such as Lawrence Krause and Neil Tyson have started to wade into the philosophical waters in order to prove there is no God because science has not and cannot disprove it.

And remember science says nothing about a topic, scientist do.
 
Codybenz said:
I actually did not start it, but I did respond really really late.

There is nothing wrong with being an agnostic, however I believe if you take all the evidence it points to a creator. The first cause argument is only one argument. You have to take all the evidence together and make a decision.

The fine tuning argument, the moral law argument, purpose in nature argument, etc.

And as far as science is concerned, the more it advances the more it aligns with theological views. Such as the beginning of the universe, popular science up until a few hundred years ago believed in a steady state universe where as the Bible stated it had a clear beginning. Science finally caught up.

Now it did do away with the God of the gaps and a lot of superstitions but hasn't even come close to getting rid of a theistic worldview.

It's why a lot of atheistic scientist such as Lawrence Krause and Neil Tyson have started to wade into the philosophical waters in order to prove there is no God because science has not and cannot disprove it.

And remember science says nothing about a topic, scientist do.
Click to expand...

Nah. Can't see evidence for a god, especially a loving one.
Nah. Tyson is a agnostic, he made a vid explaining why.
If I conceded to all 3 promises of the kalam argument, you could not make the jump to the god of the jews without hard objection from any religious group. So, nah, no point for that argument from me.

We will not change our view with a discussion about invisible deities, believe me. At least I made up my mind some 30 years ago and have not seen anything convincing to change my stand point.

Now, lets see some nudez of you, show us how much work god put into your body. :)
 
hairygrandpa said:
Nah. Can't see evidence for a god, especially a loving one.
Nah. Tyson is a agnostic, he made a vid explaining why.
If I conceded to all 3 promises of the kalam argument, you could not make the jump to the god of the jews without hard objection from any religious group. So, nah, no point for that argument from me.

We will not change our view with a discussion about invisible deities, believe me. At least I made up my mind some 30 years ago and have not seen anything convincing to change my stand point.

Now, lets see some nudez of you, show us how much work god put into your body. :)
Click to expand...

I can never argue someone into the kingdom brother, and Neil claims he is agnostic but if you listen to air of his speeches he takes an atheistic stance.

In any event I never press people with my views, I just offer some evidence/arguments and everyone has to make up there own mind.

That being said I have a question for you HGP, you see a story about a child being murdered, does that make you cringe and think man that's evil?
 
Codybenz said:
Ah-ha. Here is another subject that's fun to discuss. You're talking about subjective truth.
Click to expand...

Subjective truth is merely an opinion about the objective truth.
If I held a fire extinguisher in my hand and you perceives it as my penis, it doesn't changes the fact that its a fire extinguisher.
Okay, I lied. Right now I'm holding my penis in my hand.
 
Codybenz said:
I can never argue someone into the kingdom brother, and Neil claims he is agnostic but if you listen to air of his speeches he takes an atheistic stance.

In any event I never press people with my views, I just offer some evidence/arguments and everyone has to make up there own mind.

That being said I have a question for you HGP, you see a story about a child being murdered, does that make you cringe and think man that's evil?
Click to expand...

Yes, and I would do something about it, not like god.

Edit: ah, its only a story. Nah, would not bother me. When it comes to real life, and someone is about to murder a child, that is when I would act, the opposite of what god would do.
You are trying to bait me into the "moral argument" are you? It would backfire.
 
Codybenz said:
I can never argue someone into the kingdom brother, and Neil claims he is agnostic but if you listen to air of his speeches he takes an atheistic stance.

In any event I never press people with my views, I just offer some evidence/arguments and everyone has to make up there own mind.

That being said I have a question for you HGP, you see a story about a child being murdered, does that make you cringe and think man that's evil?
Click to expand...

It's what people do. You may say it's evil, but whoever actually did it feels differently. The truth is that a surprising amount of humans are a$$holes. Christians, Mormons, Buddhists or Mithraic Mysteries (if you wanna go that far back) all suppose they are the ones who are right. Truth is, we're just a virus with shoes.
 
SFreed said:
It's what people do. You may say it's evil, but whoever actually did it feels differently. The truth is that a surprising amount of humans are a$$holes. Christians, Mormons, Buddhists or Mithraic Mysteries (if you wanna go that far back) all suppose they are the ones who are right. Truth is, we're just a virus with shoes.
Click to expand...

too many to respond too, lol.

The test of an absolute moral law is not what people do, but how they react when something is done to them.

Example give somebody a gift they are happy, steal from somebody they are mad.

A murderer may justify his murder as right in his mind, but now start murdering him and see if he likes it.
 
hairygrandpa said:
Yes, and I would do something about it, not like god.

Edit: ah, its only a story. Nah, would not bother me. When it comes to real life, and someone is about to murder a child, that is when I would act, the opposite of what god would do.
You are trying to bait me into the "moral argument" are you? It would backfire.
Click to expand...

Backfire you say? So you agree murder is wrong if I am reading your story right
 
hairygrandpa said:
Subjective truth is merely an opinion about the objective truth.
If I held a fire extinguisher in my hand and you perceives it as my penis, it doesn't changes the fact that its a fire extinguisher.
Okay, I lied. Right now I'm holding my penis in my hand.
Click to expand...

Hahahahaha, wait a minute I think we agree on one, there is no such thing as subjective truth.
 
Codybenz said:
Backfire you say? So you agree murder is wrong if I am reading your story right
Click to expand...

Yes, because god gave me my morals. Right? The Jewish god, right? Please stop and start posting a nude pic. Its going nowhere. To me its like masturbating, because I dealt with all the arguments countless times -and came to a conclusion. Religious people need to hear the same "unbelievable" tales over -and over again, to be convinced and assured, I don't need that.
 
hairygrandpa said:
Yes, because god gave me my morals. Right? The Jewish god, right? Please stop and start posting a nude pic. Its going nowhere. To me its like masturbating, because I dealt with all the arguments countless times -and came to a conclusion. Religious people need to hear the same "unbelievable" tales over -and over again, to be convinced and assured, I don't need that.
Click to expand...

Yes exactly we agree God gave us our morals, lol.

Not sure what "we" need to be assured of though.

In any case I'm done, thanks for the conversation, it's good to give our brains a workout from time to time.

I don't have any recent nudes but I will get some. Let's just say God was real good to me with the "weight" gain over the holidays.
We go to Disney world in a month then it's time to start dropping that fat for the summer. This will be my first ever "cut" while on anabolics so I'm pumped
 
Codybenz said:
Yes exactly we agree God gave us our morals, lol.

Not sure what "we" need to be assured of though.

In any case I'm done, thanks for the conversation, it's good to give our brains a workout from time to time.

I don't have any recent nudes but I will get some. Let's just say God was real good to me with the "weight" gain over the holidays.
We go to Disney world in a month then it's time to start dropping that fat for the summer. This will be my first ever "cut" while on anabolics so I'm pumped
Click to expand...

I mean, if you want to keep this "brain exercise" going, I know someone who will gladly accept. But I'm out! LOL.
muscleupcrohn , anything to say to the "kalam cosmological argument" -or the "moral argument?" .

See? I did it, I never could figure out what muscleupcrohn 's beliefs are, you try it! ;)
 
SFreed said:
Now you went and did it!!
Click to expand...

He can be only seconds away....He is warming up his fingers, a sip on his aged cognac, caressing the statue of a ancient stoic on his desk, throwing a quick look at his huge bookshelf....

Invalid Link Removed
 
Sturdy build! You are "blessed" with a hip reserve tire like me, LOL. Nice thickness on arms (from lifting the bible up every night) ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top