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.
If we ever reach the point where we can take the natural resources around us and create life, then will reason and logic admit that we could have been created?
By that same reasoning, surely theists would then need to address the question "who created god"?
They are pretty much in denial. That was easy when very little was known (times of many things being unknown can also be refereed to as times of great ignorance)
Today many are working very very hard to remain as ignorant as possible and in complete denial, and they're pretty dang good at it.
Personally there is no way I can have any respect for or place any value in people that are so totally out of touch with knowledge and reality.
By that same reasoning, surely theists would then need to address the question "who created god"?
Humanity has never experienced a moment where nothing existed beyond ourselves. For as long as we have existed, there have been skies filled with trillions of stars/galaxies/solar systems that make the notion of other life out there a very rationale thought. God is the only being who has ever existed at a time when nothing else existed. If our existence knew no beginning then the question of "who created God" would be valid. Eternal existence is a trippy idea for our finite minds to wrap our head around, but that is natural because we had a beginning, where God never did. He has simply always existed.
Humanity has never experienced a moment where nothing existed beyond ourselves. For as long as we have existed, there have been skies filled with trillions of stars/galaxies/solar systems that make the notion of other life out there a very rationale thought. God is the only being who has ever existed at a time when nothing else existed. If our existence knew no beginning then the question of "who created God" would be valid. Eternal existence is a trippy idea for our finite minds to wrap our head around, but that is natural because we had a beginning, where God never did. He has simply always existed.
You have no evidence of this, this is only your opinion, right?
Who made god of the bible then? He just popped up out of nothing? Even the Greek gods had some birth methods. This god had to be created too if everything came from something and nothing was an accident...How come the rest of the gods can be dismissed but not this one from the bible? This one's just as incredible as the rest
Best not go there then, I can see why you wouldn't want to get rid of this one, he's the only one left..
You have no evidence of this, this is only your opinion, right?
I was speaking within the context of a creator God, and more specifically the Creator spoken of in the Bible. There is plenty of evidence for me to believe in the Bible and follow the God it speaks of. Also, if you read the post you responded to again, and then read the post it was responding to, you might notice the context a bit better.
I was speaking within the context of a creator God, and more specifically the Creator spoken of in the Bible. There is plenty of evidence for me to believe in the Bible and follow the God it speaks of. Also, if you read the post you responded to again, and then read the post it was responding to, you might notice the context a bit better.
So far as I can see, Sizzly had the context dead right. The assumption that there has to be a creator, that this postulated creator must have always existed and that it must therefore be God (and that doesn't even address the 'Which God?') question is all based on what I believe theists describe 'fallible and limited Human Understanding. Or to put it another way, just your opinion.
So far as I can see, Sizzly had the context dead right. The assumption that there has to be a creator, that this postulated creator must have always existed and that it must therefore be God (and that doesn't even address the 'Which God?') question is all based on what I believe theists describe 'fallible and limited Human Understanding. Or to put it another way, just your opinion.
Well, thank God we are all not limited to "as far as you can see". Some of us can see much further. At least fat enough to see that my statement that started all this was that if we can reach a point in time where we can take the resources around us and create life, then it would be neither un logical nor unreasonable to think that there is a possibility that we could have been created.
It was within that context that someone basically quipped that if that could be said of us, then the same could be said of God. I never even mentioned God in my original assertion. It was Mambomouse who said "theists would need to address the question of "who created God?" So, within the context of there being a God, I explained the difference between our existence now, where logic and reason could bring someone to the conclusion that we could have been created (based on the fact of how close we are to creating life, coupled with the fact that there definitely the possibility of life that predates human existence); and God's existence when creation began.
Everyone here seems so knee jerk about yelling "you have no proof that God exists!" that they can't even see that that is not what is being discussed. So many here like saying "as far as I can see" and then promptly demonstrate how limited that sight is.
Thank you for you summary of the discussion so far and I note your opportunistic snipe at those whose perspicacity (in your view) falls far short of your own. However, Sizzly's remark that what you posted regarding the Creator god which YOU specified as the contex, was just your own opinion was, as I said, bang on the money re. context and you were wrong to say she wasn't.
I'd say apologies and retractions to our Sizzling lady were in order, especially since you refuse to accept an obvious fault and try to waffle your way out of it.
Thank you for you summary of the discussion so far and I note your opportunistic snipe at those whose perspicacity (in your view) falls far short of your own. However, Sizzly's remark that what you posted regarding the Creator god which YOU specified as the contex, was just your own opinion was, as I said, bang on the money re. context and you were wrong to say she wasn't.
I'd say apologies and retractions to our Sizzling lady were in order, especially since you refuse to accept an obvious fault and try to waffle your way out of it.
have a nice day.
Gee, thanks!
HalfNelson will never apologize or retract anything.
If he had to admit his statements were merely opinions, then he would have to admit the possibility of being wrong, and he would never do that.
Doesn't he have that kind of god who punishes you for doubting him?
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.
