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.
Wow, what is astounding about you is that you can't even get what Shirina was saying. Talk about embarrassment. Most atheists, seeing that they don't believe in god/s existing, only ask the question as a means to point out the double standard in theists thinking about origins. They use fallacious thinking and apply a double standard to the issues. Jeez!
It went right over your head.
No monotheist in their right mind has ever said god began to exist.
God is outside of time.
Only that which BEGINS to exist had a creator.
No, there is a reason for constants, and when we find what the reason is, yet another gap for God closes.
Mate, you have a Nobel Prize coming, but how do you know this? Were you there?
There is no God of the gaps. The gaps are in our minds, when I learn something more about the universe it just shows me more about how God does things.
I'm a big fan of Hawkins and Penroses early work on the singularity, I am quoting their work as to the initial conditions. In order to have fields there had to be space.
Hawkins later work became logically inconsistent when he wrote " because we have a law of gravity there is no need to invoke god"
He implied there was a law of something before that something existed, and that law has the Power to create something from nothing.!
It went right over your head.
No monotheist in their right mind has ever said god began to exist.
God is outside of time.
Only that which BEGINS to exist had a creator.
Well, as the op asked...the strongest evidence?
I would say the many NDEs where the person's long struggle with a disease like cancer ravaging them is well documented...like Anita Moorjani..and hearing her experience and
seeing her all healed!
Wow.
She can be googled or her books read...too many many links to her.
There is no God of the gaps. The gaps are in our minds, when I learn something more about the universe it just shows me more about how God does things.
I'm a big fan of Hawkins and Penroses early work on the singularity, I am quoting their work as to the initial conditions. In order to have fields there had to be space.
Hawkins later work became logically inconsistent when he wrote " because we have a law of gravity there is no need to invoke god"
He implied there was a law of something before that something existed, and that law has the Power to create something from nothing.!
Gravity is what it is and arises out of natural conditions. If there is a Law, it means we recognise that something happens consistently; it doesn't mean that a god wrote '"No 1...Gravity.."
04-16-2018, 10:06 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesg
It went right over your head.
No monotheist in their right mind has ever said god began to exist.
God is outside of time.
Only that which BEGINS to exist had a creator.
That was not any part of your response to Shirina.
And by the way only that which begins to exist has a CAUSE not a CREATOR - stop smuggling in your BS intelligence. You can't even get the premise to the failed KCA right.
The problem with the word 'create' is the idea of teleology it carries. But I think it reads better to say a snowflake is created by natural forces, or a planet created by gravity. Using 'change' in this context does not come naturally to me, so I am not certain what you are trying to say here.
Natural forces can "cause" things, then, not just "change" them.
They "cause" a snowflake by changing the position of water particles relative to each other, gravity "causes" a planet by changing the positions of particles relative to each other.
Why are we always in such happy agreement and the Christians and other religious people have to segregate against each other? I wonder.
I'm asking you. This is a sincere, honest question. Please give me an alternative theory that is more reasonable than a creator that is not part of the universe causing it to exist.
OK. Great. We can certainly discuss that, but that's not the point of this discussion now. The question of origin of the creator of the universe is a different issue.
So are you willing to concede that the universe needed a creator?
I think they were sincerely and honestly trying to let you know that they think of them all equally to the extent that they would put a wager on any one of them based on their knowledge or care about them. They'd bet on the "natural/physical/this-dimensional" and "same" over the "supernatural" and "different," if they were forced to bet for some unknown and obviously unnecessary reason.
I am willing to concede (through faith and imagination and not being emotionally invested in there not being magic and super-mega-extra-supernatural forces) that there need to be as many disembodied thinking creators as anyone might want to postulate for all the different things that have different "designs"... And since some of us people design the same things as others, perhaps there could even be "100% multiple yet 100% non-multiple" gods for the very same things (trinity ideas and such). What is this "concession" supposed to help us with? Other than the possible egotistic insecurities of one or "an infinite fraction of an infinity" of these "uncaused" thoughtful creators?
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.
