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.
True, but some of you folk are sure that the universe came to be by mere chance. We have our opinion, you have yours.
Logic dictates that and ordered structured universe does not come to be by chance. Logic also says that Code is not the byproduct of chance. DNA is code. Science says as much.
And theology 101 teaches that God is outside of time and space. Never began. That's how it goes when one is eternal: without beginning or end
Since Arequipa adequately answered your first premise, of course Theology teaches this, because it must. This is the ONLY explanation theists have for the question of "Where did God come from?". Of course, this is also completely unscientific, unfalsifiable, and unverifiable. A very convenient answer, because there is no evidence that this rhelm exists, much less such a being.
In my fictional story, Gravity is a god who corresponds to the force of gravity.
That's fine, but it gives a fictional account of a god who presumably manifests is a way that no atheist could deny. Calling 'it 'gravity' is neither here nor there, unless it is a ploy to try to make us accept an unproven deity -idea as much as we accept a proven one like gravity.
Quote:
If I had to go back 3000 years and explain gravity, explaining this force as a god may not be a bad idea. This would in no way detract from the key idea that there is one unified force out there that does all these things.
Even 3,000 years ago, while nobody seriously doubted that a god made all those things, nobody claimed that god was those things. So your premise fails there.
Quote:
....Now I would like to make an analogy: the god Gravity is to the force of gravity what the god Yahweh is to the force of yahweh. The force yahweh is just the lower-case word of the god Yahweh. Just as with Gravity/gravity, there isn't that much of difference between Yahweh and yahweh, the only difference being one of interpretation. So what exactly is the force yahweh? The closest concept we have is "natural law". And by natural law, we mean one set of laws that dictate not only the laws of science but also the laws of morality. These laws include all the forces of physics as well as evolution and the forces that determine which moral systems work. This means that yahweh will enforce morality by naturally destroying those societies that follow the wrong morality.
Ok. This was suspiciously convoluted evidently in an attempt to finagle us into making a series of really unjustified mental, or rather semantic, bridges to facilitate the route from natural physical forces to a creative mind (which before we go any further is the distinction between natural physical forces and a god) and then to a specific god mentioned in a particular set of scriptures. While I get the idea that god = natural law there is the distinction of a forward planning intelligence which has to be demonstrated before the 'god' label can correctly be attached. You have really failed to demonstrate this, or indeed even tried.
Quote:
Now let's consider some of the statements in the Bible. For example, yahweh is one, there are no other gods. This means that there is only one natural law and that there are no other gods that can violate that natural law. In fact you can read the entire Hebrew Bible either in terms of Yahweh or yahweh and it will make just as much sense either way.
But why should we? What reason have you given to make a case that the force of gravity is intelligent or was made by an intelligence? And even if you did, what reason do you give for this being the god mentioned in one particular set of scriptures?
Quote:
But there is one place where my analogy breaks down, and that is with the Atheist. Real life Atheists are not reasonable people. While an Atheist may accept gravity, he will not accept yahweh or natural law because he denies morality.
All right, that's far enough Hold it right there...no, you don't need to raise your hands...Where your analogy breaks down is because you haven't give a single reason to suppose that the analogy proves anything in fact. It is not that atheist are not reasonable, but your argument is neither reasonable, logical or coherent.
That's bad enough, but trying to make a case by claiming that atheists deny morality is a despicable lie, old son.
It is your faith that has caused to shark up this fantastic clutter of hooey. It is this atheist's preference for reason, logic and valid evidence that has exposed it as such. Go away and try again. This 'proof' was a dead duck from the start.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-24-2013 at 08:32 AM..
Reason: The usual mandatory tidy -up
Wow! I've been wondering this all my life and today I was lucky enough to stumble onto someone online who was able to give me the answer! You can't imagine how this information is going to change my life!
I've seen no other explanation for why the universe exists. A creator is the only logical conclusion.
multiple creators is another, as is creation of itself, as is it all came from a giant magic egg of a flying spaghetti monster (very reminiscent of a brain, don't you think? ).
Jesus said himself, "If thine eye be single thy whole body will be full of light."
Within this human body we are equipped to see God just as Jacob did when
he said in Genesis, "I have seen the face of God and yet I live (survived."
Then, he named that place Peniel or Penuel....the pinial gland or Seat of the Soul or
Third Eye is the single eye within Jesus spoke of.
Easterners that have seen this call it, "The Light of 10,000 Suns".
NDEers also talk of this Light....(that lighteth every man that cometh into the world).
You brought back some memories. A long time ago in freshman biology, when we went over the various functions of the brain, we were told how in earlier times the pineal gland was thought to be the place where the soul resided.
You have this human being - The person who started this thread insisting that God does not exist. That is pretty arrogant and bold on the part of the writer. You are less than bacteria on this tiny speck of dust floating in an eternal universe...and YOU have the gall to say there is no God - What does a speck of mere bacteria called human really know? NOTHING> so be quiet..I don't need your grand statement on the God factor. It's irritating.
You have this human being - The person who started this thread insisting that God does not exist. That is pretty arrogant and bold on the part of the writer. You are less than bacteria on this tiny speck of dust floating in an eternal universe...and YOU have the gall to say there is no God - What does a speck of mere bacteria called human really know? NOTHING> so be quiet..I don't need your grand statement on the God factor. It's irritating.
It's my view that both you and the OP have it 180 degrees backwards. What business does an insignificant speck of dusk have saying anything at all about god when god is an unfalsifiable and unprovable concept?
I don't know if the OP literally meant the thread title or if it's just poor choice of words. I would have said "I'm justifiably so skeptical that gods are real, that I don't believe there are such beings". This clarifies whether I'm talking about a specific god or the concept of god, and it clarifies that my position is that of the unconvinced skeptic. I have no burden of proof to make such a statement. I think that equally someone saying literally there are or aren't gods and especially someone saying that a specific god does or doesn't exist, has a burden of proof to take on if they want to literally say that.
True, but some of you folk are sure that the universe came to be by mere chance. We have our opinion, you have yours.
Logic dictates that and ordered structured universe does not come to be by chance. Logic also says that Code is not the byproduct of chance. DNA is code. Science says as much.
And theology 101 teaches that God is outside of time and space. Never began. That's how it goes when one is eternal: without beginning or end
I say the universe is eternal. This universe just the current one in a long line of deaths and rebirths of universes without a beginning or an end. I say matter and the universal elements have always existed in some form or other. If your god can be eternal why can't the universe?
This is far more logical than beliving in a divine being that lives outside the known laws of the universe.
Just an entertaining aside....Bishop Fulton J. Sheen *....(deceased Catholic writer,scholar, bla bla, famous guy on TV and Newpaper columns) once said to an atheist that was comparing God to gravity something like, "Fine, then pray to Gravity."
Bada bing.....
And hi, nezlie...
Quote: If you haven't seen God, I see no reason to believe there is one.
~Miss Hepburn
*to any Catholics I just by chance was confirmed by Bishop Sheen....his hands were like butta.
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.
Hold it right there...no, you don't need to raise your hands...Where your analogy breaks down is because you haven't give a single reason to suppose that the analogy proves anything in fact. It is not that atheist are not reasonable, but your argument is neither reasonable, logical or coherent. 
).
