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.
So what it comes down to is that you just don't know, but you are not willing to concede the existence of a creator. Gotcha.
Essentially, yes. Where we do not know either way, it is logically wrong to claim that we DO know, and to claim that Goddunnit is the only feasible option where we simply don't know much about it is also logically wrong.
This is the problem that Theists never seem to be able to understand. In some way or another the whole of existence is seen as incomprehensible unless some thinking being made it all.
The point was made about where God came from, but I can already anticipate the answer 'God was always there, perfect, complex, needing to come from nowhere'. And the proof is some Bible quote about Alpha and Omega. Sorry, I don't have faith - or illogic -enough for that. I'll go with 'don't know' - but something from nothing is looking a lot more possible than we thought at one time.
It's based off of observation. Can you name ANYTHING that exists that wasn't caused/created?
Nothing in the universe was created ex-nihilo as you are proposing the universe itself was, so everything in the universe is an example of an uncreated thing as you're using the term. That's the problem of trying to stretch common sense about how everyday things work on a time and place where common sense doesn't apply - it gives you a totally wrong intuition. For example :
Quote:
I'm sorry...I cannot conceive of an eternal universe prior to the big bang.
Well that settles it. Someone with no professional background in the field says it is impossible so we should all defer to their opinion. That may be how it works in church, but back here in reality it doesn't cut it.
I'm sorry...I cannot conceive of an eternal universe prior to the big bang. .
I and a number of other posters have been trying to explain to you that the above is the prime error you are making in this discussion.
"I cannot conceive.."..followed by, "therefore it cannot be."
That is a system of thinking which relies on the idea that all that there is to know about cosmology is contained within the limits of your imagination. If it does not make sense to you based on what you currently know, then it cannot possibly be valid.
We are dealing with a situation of unknowns, as I have pointed out several times, we do not even know the limits of the possibilities or if we would be capable of perceiving or understanding the truth if it was right before us.
An ant crawling across a microchip does not differentiate between that and a solid piece of plastic even though we know there is a massive difference. The reason is that the ant's perceptive and analytical abilities do not extend to the point of being able to make such distinctions. The idea of a microchip simply does not exist for an ant.
In the same manner, how would we know if our current abilities are sufficient for coping with entities which are far more advanced than we? How do we know that the relationship between ultimate cosmological truth and our comprehensive abilities, is any different from the relationship between the microchip and the ant's comprehensive abilities?
So, if as you confess "you cannot conceive..." of anything beyond what we currently know...then this is not the discussion for you.
I seem to be having a dreadfully difficult time getting you to understand this.
I was reading about the future of the Milk Way Galaxy on a NASA site.
In thousands of years, galaxies will spread far enough apart from one another, that if we'd been born a significant amount of time in the future, we'd have no way of knowing other galaxies existed because we'd have no way to view them. We'd think ours was the only galaxy.
It could be that we'll never have the ability to differentiate between that microchip and that piece of plastic, due to the lack of necessary resources for doing so.
If we still exist when galaxies become only dimly visible, it would be nice if someone buried images of those multiple galaxies in airtight, decay-resistant containers.
Then their descendants, many thousands of years in the future, could find and open the containers. Ideally, there would be a note inside that says, "Surprise! Look at this! Our galaxy is not the only galaxy! We've included pictures so you don't assume we believed in multiple galaxies due to religious beliefs, because we know archeologists tend to assume practices of cultures they don't understand the reasons for were religious practices.
I and a number of other posters have been trying to explain to you that the above is the prime error you are making in this discussion.
"I cannot conceive.."..followed by, "therefore it cannot be."
Isn't that the crux of the atheist dilemna? "I cannot conceive...therefore it cannot be"? Why not try opening that gigantic brain and actually thinking through it logically? There either is a personal creator, or there isn't. We can disprove the "isn't", so the only logical conclusion is that there is.
Yet...you can't conceive of that, so you choose the "none of the above". it's mind-boggling.
There either is a personal creator, or there isn't. .
If you had understood what was being written, you would not have written the above.
You keep writing that, people keep explaining why that is an error, and you apparently have not grasped any of the explanations because you keep trotting out the same error.
It isn't either/or, it is "there is a personal creator, there isn't a personal creator, or the question is actually an irrelevant one in terms of the actual cosmology at work.
This thread is all about that last...."the question is actually an irrelevant one" and you have not understood that.
Now do you get it? Please quit making the same useless contribution.
This would seem to be the least discussed possibility whenever atheists and creationists are debating cosmological questions.
Even if there is a creator, does it necessarily follow that this creator is some sort of divinity as opposed to a hyper advanced life form?
As I said in another thread, well not only is there not creation without a creator, and not only do several of the laws of science fly in the face of atheism, but more specifically, the definition of Creator assumes nothing at all about the one doing creation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia
Creator is something or someone that brings something into being.
Creator simply means one who creates. It could be space aliens, a machine, a cosmic event, anything really.
If you had understood what was being written, you would not have written the above.
You keep writing that, people keep explaining why that is an error, and you apparently have not grasped any of the explanations because you keep trotting out the same error.
It isn't either/or, it is "there is a personal creator, there isn't a personal creator, or the question is actually an irrelevant one in terms of the actual cosmology at work.
This thread is all about that last...."the question is actually an irrelevant one" and you have not understood that.
Now do you get it? Please quit making the same useless contribution.
An inability of humans to frame the question correctly.
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.
