Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Clearly you intend this "Creator" to have intent to create. As I suspected. Rather than "accident" unplanned event, then. How can you be so sure, when nobody knows?
Because there is no such thing as an accident. It's just a word we use when we don't know or are to lazy to find the source.
Why do you suppose a creator makes more sense? Wouldn't it be equally as "sensible" then, to suppose your creator needed a creator?
Because that's the very essence of the infinite regression problem. You can't just make up an explanation that actually explains nothing. At least not if you are, in fact, using "logic"....as you assert.
LOL. I am done with you. You keep repeating the same thing over and over and over again without independent thought or logical reason why. Earth to Jimmie - it's a fluke. No one knows for sure but from evidence at hand one person didn't do it. Common sense tells me that's impossible. It's obvious from your posts on this thread you never put any hard thinking into this.
You failed to answer why you have this mindset and my question who made up that invisible, incompetent monster you call god / creator. It's not a thing / theory I want to be associated with...
I'm ashamed to admit I was once a believer but I was badly brainwashed by horrible parents, especially by my mentally and physically abusive religious father. It took me until 19 years old to figure out it was all a lie.
The proof is on you, not me. I do not hear voices nor do I see any evidence to support why you believe an invisible deity made all of this. No one is in control nor did anyone make this world of chaos. If anything you should be turning your back on the idea of one or at the very least be agnostic.
And you failed to come up with a better answer than a creator (of some sort).
It is the only honest answer anyone can give, although it ignores the partial answers we already have, which are the fruitful place where one would logically look for more complete answers.
Again, a simple assertion with no logical argument in its favor. Saying something doesn't make it either so ... or logical ... or sensible.
Based on what we know now, a creator (of some sort) makes the most sense.
Careful... "Common Sense" is not a reliable guide to fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmiej
Because you can't give me a better option.
As a matter of fact, I can, but, even if I couldn't, that still leaves No options rather than just One.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmiej
Because there is no such thing as an accident. It's just a word we use when we don't know or are to lazy to find the source.
Very well, don't use "Accident". Use the term commonly applied to the workings we do know about that drive everything from nuclear physics to tectonic plate movement, and from stellar formation to evolution.
"Natural physical processes".
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmiej
I don't know vs. a creator.
"I don't know" is honest. "A creator" is actually dishonest because it is either making a claim without any real support or it is (though I doubt this) referring to the natural processes we know but which can only explain so much.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-05-2016 at 09:27 AM..
Based on what we know now, a creator (of some sort) makes the most sense.
Well, if it makes you sleep better at night to think that, then so be it. I don't necessarily disagree with it since I consider myself to be about 25% deist.
I think it's quite possible that a God accidentally belched out the universe and then went to excuse himself for a few trillion years due to his embarrassment. So, the big bang is actually a "big belch." :-)
Well, if it makes you sleep better at night to think that, then so be it. I don't necessarily disagree with it since I consider myself to be about 25% deist.
I think it's quite possible that a God accidentally belched out the universe and then went to excuse himself for a few trillion years due to his embarrassment. So, the big bang is actually a "big belch." :-)
Indeed. The debate is actually logically pointless (there is a theist apologetics point and jimmie knows it well enough) because if one even concedes a Creator (by no means the only option) then we are left with two options - either natural processes (which have only limited evidence) or a divine intelligence, for which there is neither mechanism nor sound evidence.
But even if we conceded the divine intelligence, that only gives us the two options - a deist god of the kind you mention or a hands - on god, for which a lot of objections have to be explained away before it even looks possible, let alone probable.
But supposing we opted for a hands -on God, that only leaves us with three options:
Biblegod
one of the others,
one we haven't thought of.
And I think that anyone with a a bit of nous will have cottoned by now that this line of argument gets Jesusgod nowhere at all.
P.s
Of course I know at such a point we will get the Leap of Faith. Having wangled (or so they hope) a "Creator" (aka "God") into acceptance by a rather more sophisticated gambit than this clumsy ploy of jimmie's, and the 'Which God?" question comes up, then the Leeeaaaap to the Bible and the verified history and science in the Bible and "Smoke marks on Jebl Laws proves the exodus" is supposed to make Biblegod (and specifically Jesusgod) the only option.
That's why we have to be prepared to fight on two fronts - against the efforts to wangle a "God" by any other name into some sorta acceptance (1) and against the efforts to claim the Bible as "True" to any kind of acceptance up to and including metaphorically true, morally true or true because it has been translated into more languages that you ever heard of.
Fortunately we havehgeavy enough weaponry that we can fight n three or four fronts, if necessary. Just so we don't allow ourselves to be cowed and shamed into shutting up and going away by those complaining about how woude and nasty we are.
(1) the apologetics gimmics, rhetorical swindles and philosophical fiddles are endless from "God - Morality" to "God = something of supreme importance". The insolence of these cheap tricks is surpassed only by the supreme insolence of trying the same tricks even when they have been exposed as mere attempts at bamboozlement.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-05-2016 at 09:51 AM..
Well, as I and others have pointed out, the creator is no option with any sort of explanatory power. In other words, if your explanation doesn't even explain how, then it may as well be called "poof, magic did it!".
Honesty about what? "We don't know...", but a creator is definitely not the answer! If you don't know, why is a creator off the table?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know at such a point we will get the Leap of Faith. Having wangled (or so they hope) a "Creator" (aka "God") into acceptance by a rather more sophisticated gambit than this clumsy ploy of jimmie's, and the 'Which God?" question comes up, then the Leeeaaaap to the Bible and the verified history and science in the Bible and "Smoke marks on Jebl Laws proves the exodus" is supposed to make Biblegod (and specifically Jesusgod) the only option. 
