Why is April Fool's Day so sucky when it's on a Sunday?

By Kenzie on Sunday, April 1, 2001 - 06:44 pm:

Because Sundays within themselves are sucky days. Thus tainting april fools day with its sucky Sundayishness. On the flip side, if you decided to do something for april fools day in church... Talk about potential! Oh the possibilities! Next time I'll plan better.

By someone who isn't someone else on Sunday, April 1, 2001 - 09:26 pm:

Last year I did loads. This year I slept in. Oh well.

By ZACH+--- on Sunday, April 1, 2001 - 09:39 pm:

I hate Sundays because the are far too much like Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays and nothing like Fridays or Saturdays (which are beginning to resemble Sundays) as well as vaguely reminiscent of Wednesdays... AAAAAGHHHH we need to reevaluate this whole "Days of the week thing"!!!!!!!!!

By TobyZ on Sunday, April 1, 2001 - 09:53 pm:

Laxative in the sacrificial wine would be brilliant!

By ZACH+---- on Sunday, April 1, 2001 - 10:34 pm:

I go to a unitarian fellowship so i really think it would be great to tell all the athists and so called "witches" that they cant come anymore... i would piss myself laughing when they get up to leave and the rest of us shout "april fools"

By TobyZ on Sunday, April 1, 2001 - 10:54 pm:

You leave us Athiests alone. We know there's no God to come and save you when we get midevil on your ass.

By Zach+---- on Monday, April 2, 2001 - 12:01 am:

I nevr said atheists were wrong... I have kn answers... i have no dogma ect... and my ass dosent need "saveing"

By alex on Monday, April 2, 2001 - 12:21 am:

Wow, he really does'nt know how to spell.

By Paige on Monday, April 2, 2001 - 01:02 am:

hmm - endless possibilities indeed. And for some reason I can't get the idea of streaking through a church of jehovas witnesses. It wouldn't even be appropriate for April fools. I just like it. hehe

By Wateva on Monday, April 2, 2001 - 02:55 am:

What evidence do people have that belief in God is reasonable?

One of the most frequently asked questions, which most people should have come across is,¡¥Does God exist? Instead I will study the arguments that people have on which belief in God is reasonable. That is because it is not possible to prove the existence of God, and if it were possible, it would surely have been done so a long time ago.
Many people have put forth their arguments supporting the idea that God exists, and that belief in God is reasonable. Several arguments have come up including - the Ontological Argument by a 11th Century philosopher named Anselm. There is a Cosmological Argument by the 13th Century philosopher Sir Thomas Aquinas and the Teleological Argument by the 18th Century thinker William Paley. Blaise Pascal offered the Wager Argument. Other arguments include the Morality Argument, the Religious Experience Argument, and Science has also produced the Big Bang Theory in the 20th Century. Even though these arguments have been agreed with, and developed further, there still lies disagreements, and in the past, people have argued against these arguments.

Sir Thomas Aquinas¡¦ Cosmological argument is the First Cause Argument. ¡¥Cosmos¡¦ is Greek and refers to ¡¥World¡¦. Subsequently, the Cosmological Argument is built on the fact that the World exists and so must God because he created it. This idea may seem to sound stubborn, because it seems to ignore other ideas such as the Universe was not created by God.
Regardless of that, Aquinas¡¦ argument does work, and I think that it seems logical, even though it seems a little incompetent after some other arguments are placed next to it.
Aquinas¡¦ firm belief on God is based on one of his arguments, the First Cause argument. Aquinas argued that all the effects that have been made regress back to a cause.
Imagine there was a line of dominoes. One domino falls down. There must then be a cause because a domino does not move on its own. The cause of that domino is because the domino behind it fell down, therefore pushing the next one down. However if these causes are traced back then, there either is a ¡¥first cause¡¦ that had caused them, which in this case may be a domino that fell down on its own, or that the cause traces back forever. This will then apply that there were an infinite series of dominoes.
Aquinas disagreed with the possibility of having an infinite series of causes and effects, but instead chooses to believe that there is a First Cause. Aquinas believed that every effect traces back to a cause and if all these effects and causes are traced back, then there must be a First Cause. This First Cause though, Aquinas argues, must be uncaused, because it is the First Cause and since the causes do not trace back, this First Cause must be uncaused.
With this argument, Aquinas concluded that the existence of the universe must have a cause and therefore God is the First Cause. Since God is the First Cause and he is uncaused, then he must be the Uncaused First Cause.
I think that the part of Aquinas¡¦ argument that I don¡¦t find convincing enough is that he simply bases his ideas on a situation, the effect, finding reasons, the infinite causes or the First Cause, and then concluding with the First Cause.
I think that Aquinas is logical because I wouldn¡¦t think that there could be an infinite series of causes and effects, but just because it doesn¡¦t seem logical doesn¡¦t mean it can¡¦t be possible. After all, why do we need to accept that there is a First Cause? I think that this is where Aquinas has a problem- he is basing his arguments on conclusions that he chooses. Nonetheless, I wouldn¡¦t totally disagree with Aquinas because, all the many of the arguments are also based on conclusions because there isn¡¦t a way of getting evidence to support the ideas, certainly at Aquinas¡¦ times there was not.
One of the arguments that have been mentioned earlier would give some further support to Aquinas, and that is the Big Bang Theory. This modern day 20th Century scientific theory implies that about 15,000 million years ago, the universe expanded from what was an incredibly dense and small matter to what is now our Earth, the sun, and planets. The expansion is still believed to be going on. It is believed that all the planets and stars have been formed due to the result of the cooling of the matter that was expanding.
This Big Bang Theory relates very closely to Aquinas¡¦ ideas. Although it may not seem obvious at first and may require some thought to be put to it. The Big Bang suggests that the universe did not start from nothing, nor was it always in existence. It suggests that it started out as some small, dense matter. Aquinas says that every effect is triggered by a cause, since all things have a cause. So by combing these two ideas, then the small, dense matter that was the start of the universe must have been the effect of a cause. Therefore this Uncaused First Cause must be God.
I think that this has made Aquinas more convincing, because I would have found both of them very unconvincing if they were without one or the other. I wouldn¡¦t be able to convince myself in believing that the Universe had expanded from a small dense ball to what it is now. That is because Science is not able to provide a reason for this expansion. By putting both of these ideas together, I think, has been able to make an even better argument.
Another argument that I think will relate to the previous arguments is the Teleological argument by the 18th Century philosopher William Paley. He offered this Design argument and he believed that there was so much order and design in the World that it could not have been caused by accident.
Paley used what was at his time the most complicated of human designs- the watch. Paley argued that such a sophisticated piece of machinery, if it were to be found lying on the ground then the person who picked it up would immediately have thought that it was designed. Paley argued that unlike some other thing , a rock he would have been able to see that it was made by pieces put together. So therefore Paley concluded that the universe, like the watch, worked so well, with order, that it must as well have a designer. He concluded that the designer of such a well-designed world must also have a designer, and that must be God.
This will relate back to Aquinas and the Big Bang because, since the world works so well then it must be designed. The designer is God and because it is believed that the possibility of the Big Bang happening was so small, then it must have been designed and God would be the cause if the design.
There are problems with Paley¡¦s argument because if we decide God is the designer, the He would not have been designed, and also because he is the Uncaused First Cause. If one chose to believe that God had a designer then we can believe that the Universe did not have a designer either.
An 11th Century philosopher Anselm put forth the Ontological argument. Anselm¡¦s definition of God was ¡¥that than which nothing greater can be conceived.¡¦ He then extended this and said that if God did not exist then something greater would, but nothing greater than God can be conceived and so God must therefore exist.
I think that Anselm¡¦s definition of God was very ingenious, and the way that he has put forth his argument, so straightforward, it leaves me wordless.
There is a slight problem, because not necessarily everything that one can think of will exist. I can think of time stopping, but it wills not, it cannot, and it does not. So just because God is the greatest that is conceivable, it does not mean that it exists.
Another argument is the morality argument. We as human beings have morals and no one but God could have gave us that. I think that the problem with that is that we do not have the same set of morals, but on the majority of things I think that it is the same. I don¡¦t know if it is because of God who gave us some variations in our morals, or probably we were influenced later. Some may argue that all our morals are influenced otherwise, but I don¡¦t agree with that because when we are very young we know how to judge things, and it does not take much influencing, or teaching to tell us that. Somehow we are able to determine the right and wrong of things.
There is the Religious Experience argument, that people have seen visions, had their prayers answered, or have been healed of and incurable disease somehow.
This is a difficult argument because its only those that have claimed to have felt those experiences that are able to feel it. It is hard to say that if someone¡¦s prayers were answered and it has to be God, because, it happened because of something else. Visions may be hallucinations, as other people will not have seen it and so it is hard to convince people.
A 17th Century philosopher Blaise Pascal offered the Wager argument. He said that,
¡¥If I wager for the existence of God and god exists then there is infinite gain,
If I wager for the existence of God and God is not in existence then there is no loss,
If I wager against the existence of god and God exists, then there is infinite loss,
If I wager against the existence of God and God is not in existence, then there is neither loss nor gain.¡¦
Pascal gives a very vague idea on the God that is mentioned here. He seems to make belief in God seem such a playful business, and that simple ¡¥belief¡¦ is enough. He seems not to take into account that believing in God can mean a lot of faith and it involves time, and worship. If there were no God then people who listened to his advice would have wasted a lot of money, and time, which does apply to loss.

After all these arguments I think that believing in God is reasonable, and I think that it makes sense because I think that Aquinas¡¦ argument was especially convincing to me. I could not make myself believe that the Universe formed itself, or even worse, that it was here all along. I think that William Paley¡¦s argument is convincing as well because when I think about it, it is true, the world works very well, with so much order. I can think of the natural cycles, like the water cycle, how water evaporates, condenses, and evaporates again, performing the same process all over again. I think of the human body, all the enzymes, the long and complicated chain of DNA, this could not possibly be the creations of a coincidence. I believe that someone must have designed everything. It would be very unconvincing if someone told me that all the things I se around me, the trees, flowers, land, people, animals, were all the result of coincidence. I would think that it is absurd if such were the case. I am secular, but I do not disagree with the idea that God exists, because He does provide an answer to the Universe and morality.
So I do conclude that I think that belief in God is reasonable, and certainly it makes sense. I don¡¦t think that belief that there is no God is unreasonable though, because we don¡¦t have any evidence, and I think that all arguments are right in there own way, making some sense.

Just thought that this might be of some relevence for those of you who did take the time to read it.

By ZACH+---- on Monday, April 2, 2001 - 03:50 am:

Wow! your handy with the cut and past functions on your computor arnt ya?

By alex on Monday, April 2, 2001 - 05:28 am:

I'm not reading all that...

By TobyZ on Monday, April 2, 2001 - 12:51 pm:

See, if there was a god, he/she/it wouldn't allow that much text to be put into a coping post.

And I went to the University of St.Thomas and managed to never read any of his writings, so I'm certainly not going to start now. Why don't you cut and paste the Cliff's Notes version?

By TobyZ on Monday, April 2, 2001 - 12:54 pm:

And Alex, I can't stop laughing at "Wow, he really doesn't know how to spell". AFOOMCF!

Atrocious, Abominable. . . there really is no single word that does it justice, is there?

By Paige on Monday, April 2, 2001 - 02:11 pm:

Toby - The university of St. Thomas as in St. Paul Minnesota? I live about a half an hour drive from there. Kenzie is about 10 mins from there. If thats the one you're talking about.

By TobyZ on Monday, April 2, 2001 - 02:31 pm:

The one and the same. I now live near the North St. Paul giant Snowman with the cannon pointing at it.

Is nobody in coping British?

By Paige on Monday, April 2, 2001 - 04:46 pm:

lol. You should come and play with us sometime then dearest.

By TobyZ on Monday, April 2, 2001 - 04:53 pm:

Amanda, there is no doubt in my mind that this path will lead to prison and the confiscation of my computer as evidence.

Pagie, I'm going to sleep now. . . but I'll think about it doll.

By ZACH+---- on Monday, April 2, 2001 - 08:47 pm:

I wasent the one who said AFOOMCF!

By Wateva on Tuesday, April 3, 2001 - 02:25 am:

I don't know the Cliff version, this is my own version that I did myself.

By Scamp on Tuesday, April 3, 2001 - 11:00 am:

When I were a young 'un (like, about eleven) I remember getting shouted at by my Grade Seven teacher for attempting to explain to my class why my confirmation saint, St Thomas, was not the same St Thomas nearly all the other boys had picked. Oh, no. They'd picked Thomas Acquanis (pardon me if I've spelt that wrong), whereas I'd picked Thomas More. My teacher, Mr Winterbottom (that's right, WINTERBOTTOM) told me I had an "attitude problem" for attempting to make this distinction.
Fuck, I hated that bastard.
Excuse that little digression, folks...on with yer chattering, then.

By nat on Tuesday, April 3, 2001 - 09:36 pm:

paige: it's called a "kingdom hall".

wateva: i'm not even gonna skim that

By Wateva on Wednesday, April 4, 2001 - 03:02 am:

you didn't have to make it that clear Nat...*sob*
and at least wirte the 'have a lovely day'

By TobyZ on Wednesday, April 4, 2001 - 04:42 am:

nat, are you a Jehovah?

If so and you ever came around my place bothering people, I'm sorry I turned out all the lights and hid behind the curtain so y'all would think nobody was home.

By Paige on Wednesday, April 4, 2001 - 02:11 pm:

Oh, thanks Nat.

By nittaya on Wednesday, April 4, 2001 - 10:53 pm:

lol, no Toby, i'm not a Jehovah's witness, but my grandmother, mother, and aunt have all been (and have all quit), and oddly enough, my father's current wife just became a Jehovah's Witness a few years back. so i have quite a few of the books and magazines, and go to some meetings in the summer. (and don't worry, none offense taken - i now know that if i ever go bother you in ?minneapolis?, i should just come in through the window...)

and wateva, i DO always wish you a great day. alright? (i just can't always write that...)
~ nat.

By TobyZ on Thursday, April 5, 2001 - 12:35 pm:

Ohhh, the fuckin' religious groups and dogs never leave me alone. I think they know I'm the anti-christ.

By Wateva on Thursday, April 5, 2001 - 12:38 pm:

Thanks Nat, and hey, my name is Wateva, not wateva. Sorry about being so picky.
Hope you have a great day too.