nah "Tribo" in fact Jesus would most likely embrace buddha wire ...I mean the two of them have practically the same philosopy ..they both wear togas and earth shoes ..the only different is Buddha is carrying the baby Jesus in his belly

"SpendidLife" you're not about to go feminist on us are you

LOL!

Actually, I include myself in "MAN" in this context and AGREE with the nuance of DB's words.

funches,
I am in no way daring to assume anything, The (oh by the way its spelled Yin not Yen) Yin and Yang just simply recognizes that there are opposites in the universe that balance and maintain each other. It does not assume anything nor have i implied that i was there at the moment of creation. You fail to realize that by you stating there was a need to create that you therefore assume that the source had some kind of "personal conflict" or a "need" to create the universe.
This assumption in the question which began the thread dismisses any chance that there may not have been any need or conflict. I am simply stating your question proceeds to make an assumption about the nature of creation, which is something which cannot be assumed unless you were present at the time of creation. Your question is ultimately not logical, flawed and in the end questionable itself.

"Maikura" in the land of Physics any every and/or all actions requires a need purpose and/or reason to carry out that action

so can you explain why that logic doesn't apply to "The One" or the Yin and the Yang

You have no evidence that anything is "involved" does that mean that no conversation on god can take place rationally?

Hmm, I think I agree with you!


The next question is did it/him/god, have a choice is creating the universe?

r u still in here completely negating what everyone says and only taking wat u want out of things so u can keep arguing

what you talking about willis

hahaha who the hell is willis lol

arnold's brother on the sitcom "Different Stokes"

oh ok ive never seen it lol listen man questions about god can never be completely answered if we all new the answer it would b easy thats y they call it faith and thats the part i have trouble with trusting something thats never been there for me or shown itself to me

Funchez,
I am not sure what physics books you have been reading but last time i checked "need" and "reason" are human concepts and last time i checked asteriods colliding never had a "need" or "reason" to do so. Once again you presume to understand things in human terms and concepts which are completely outside the realm of humanity. True physics has to do with the movement and interaction of objects not their thoughts, intents or purposes.... Think about it when is the last time you consulted a raindrop as to why it intended to fall from the sky. This action takes place outside of any need of purpose or any thought of reason. Your logic is terribly flawed.

"DHinkle"...all questions about God can be answered through logic even if the God is some illogical lunatic ..because even lunacy has a certain logic to it

also if you are having problems trusting that which is unseen and incomprehensible to the human senses ...then that is the best time to rely on your common sense

"MaiKuru" the physics books I been reading always said that any action has an equal and opposite reaction

you keep making the same mistake as any religious person that try to justify their beliefs using science by thinking knowledge is only transferred by conscious entities

those asteroids you were referring to move because the knowledge to do so was tranferred to it due to the actions of another object possible colliding with it and gave it a purpose reason and need to move

which means no action can be performed or take place without a purpose reason or a need to so ...and I'm still waiting on you to explain how "The One" and the Yin and Yang can perform action without a "need" ...you seem to keep forgetting to answer that question ..

First off funches you make the mistake of assuming knowledge prior to understanding or even witnessing such event. Your first assumption in the above said arguement is that I am a religious person. Sorry to inform you, this assumption was wrong. I am not a active member of any religion. Religions are just another form of government and control. I study and practice philosophy, reasoning and research spiritual connections to such philosophies. You then go own to assume that knowledge(information,facts,thoughts and intents) are passed on between inanimate objects. Again assuming knowledge where evidence is lacking to support such knowledge. You still continue to attach human thoughts, precepts, emotions and relations to things which are clearly not human in nature because you must have knowledge to justify your assumed understanding and preceptions about the universe.
You want an answer...here it his though i doubt you'll grasp it. The One or as i call it the Source, or the Tao is without any concept of need, desire, want or purpose. These are concepts of the human ego that seperates it from the Tao or the source. Action is not the result of such things. Action is the result of the absence of action.
Everything comes from nothing and nothing comes everything. What is not there is there becuase it is not. These are not contradictions and they are in fact the beggining stirrings of what became creation. There was no need because need had not yet existed. They only way i can put this in terms that you can understand is think of a empty glass. Now what is it? Your answer should be simple, an empty glass right. Does that glass have any need? No of course not its an empty glass. Some might say it needs to be filled but this is their need not any need of the glass. A man gets thristy so he needs to fill the glass with water to drink. This is not the need of the glass or the water but the need of the man. The source had no need to create it was just the source, it is only man who feels that the source had a need to create. You cannot assume that which occurs naturally needs a reason. It is beyond your reason. I hope that helps funches.

"Maikuru" Religion are beliefs with a spiritual entity as God..like Yahweh Allah etc.

A philosophy is a belief in a Human God like Jesus, Buddha etc.

as you describe Taoism referring to "The One" and the "Yin" and The "Yang" is the same as The Trinty ...you may as well just stayed a Christian

the question is not need or want it is why and while were at it why does man and woman create now think about this even though we can mass produce why is each and every one uniquely different in its own way even though the process is exactly the same cant wait to start using energy instead of material which is from energy as a living energy a spirit

"tv2enslave4life" ..people tend to have the need to do things without thinking about why they need to but yet the need to do it exist within them ..but an omnipotent God is not suppose to have such needs or whys

also one of the reasons a man and a women may have a "need" to create is probably not that they were thinking about how their creation would be uniquely different but more than likely they fell prey to their instinctive hornyness ...so is that one possible reason "why" God had the need to create

not sure Gods get horny but then again according to the Virgin Mary they do

this my only explination of a truely real imaculant conception.
Try using scientific formula too prove that. being that I know how to create a living organizm that is proven to be imposible by formula in all runs thru the formula. it comes back as 13 or 14 in the periodic table 1 to 1 every time and not what is truely creates life.

but yet through logic u cant answer your question, the reason is u dont listen to logic. People have been on here giving u answers and logic would say(if your really looking for an answer) to actually take wat the person says and consider it as a possibility. But instead you dont, u only either repeat yourself about "NEED" or negate the answer given and twist it so u can refuse it. So u either arent listening to logic, or u really dont want an answer. And u no im pretty sure its the latter.