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, "we don't know" is the best answer you can give. Left with that, a creator makes the most sense.
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.
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?
I'm just saying a creator (of some sort) makes sense. A cosmic accident is illogical, based on what we do know.
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.
I'm just saying a creator (of some sort) makes sense. A cosmic accident is illogical, based on what we do know.
It is not. No more than saying tan an avalanche of tsunami can't be an 'accident' based on what we do know. Or, going back that the extinction of the reptiles in the Triassic or the Dinosaurs in the Cretaceous was an 'accident' based on what we do know. Or that the formation of the earth or the galaxy was an 'accident' based on what we do know. It is illogical to suppose that they were anything other than 'accidents'. So why should it suddenly be logical to assert that the start of the universe cannot have been an 'accident'?
As to better explanations, there is one, of sorts. But like abiogenesis (also an 'accident'}we are guessing, pretty much.
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.
The reason we have to be forbearing and understanding even with blockheads - for - God is that it makes us look good and it prevents them being able to walk away with an undeserved "Draw" which they will later present as "The atheists couldn't refute my argument".
The key to understanding the theist mindset is Faith. They already KNOW it's All True through Faith. Thus presentation of a valid case isn't the objective - it is winning, any way you can. Or at least scraping an 'Agree to differ" draw, or avoiding admitting that you lost
by changing the subject
going on the attack
starting a fight
dickering about trifles
Faith -declarations
"I don't care what you say"
Accusations of closed -minded bias
"You know I'm right, deep down inside".
Running away with a Parthian shot (1)
ets
etc
(1) classic example that elicited one of my uncommon outbursts.
"Give me an example of cats giving birth to dogs".
"That's not what evolution claims."
"Oh.. so you can't answer my question...I win..goodbye."
Cowardly dishonest bastard
Still steams me breeks even now he knows who he is. If he even dares shows his face.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-04-2016 at 05:37 AM..
That's just it.....it's like saying "magic" is how it happened. And that's no explanation at all...let alone a better one.
Yes. They really believe that an admission of "Don't know" is handing them the "Goddunnit" argument in a box. It really is because they begin with an assumption that there is a god - specifically the god they believe in - and thus an intended and planned Creation by this god is to be taken as an a priorigiven, at the outset.
I know this to be so, not just because of a debate where Matt Dillahunty was mocked and sneered at because the atheists 'don't know' how the universe started, not just because some ancient poster I can't think of reacted with annoyed incredulity when I said 'We don't know" as a response to "How did the universe start"? (1) , but Mystic phd here seemed to get his logic backwards in telling me that the burden of proof was on atheism to disprove a god. There was a reason for this. It was valid and justified to assume the existence of "God" a priori. Admittedly he did then argue from First Cause and a necessary act of will (which is all assumptions) and the discussion ended there, but it is clear that the whole theist argument can only be understood knowing that they believe on Faith that a God exists and that it must be the Creator of the universe. The various arguments from infinite regression, Kalam, Ontology, nothing comes from nothing etc, are not the evidence for their belief in this God, but their way of justifying the Faith -belief after the event.
Notably, Kalam was debunked because it only works if you assume a god to start off with. That, to put the finger on it, is the illogic of the theist position, but they don't and won't realize that, because they think that God is to be accepted as true to begin with.
This buggers all debate at the outset and that is why they think that that atheism has the burden of proof to debunk God, and that involves of course their demand that we come up with a sound (2) alternative creation -explanation or admit defeat.
No wonder they can't believe it when we say "We don't know" and can't understand why that doesn't mean that we have admitted that a God Exists.
(1) I remember he argued that the burden of proof was at least equally on atheism since we were making a claim of an assumption that a god didn't exist. I said it wasn't an assumption to start with no assumptions (in fact a tabula rasa) and he insisted it was making an 'assumption', but here it became all about tactics for winning, not getting at the truth.
I remember his "Whatever created us must be Greater" gambit. I countered his Maker analogy by arguing that we make computers that are smarter and quicker than us. He responded with a rather familiar theist apologetics argument - method.
(2) and 100% provable, of course
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-04-2016 at 09:08 AM..
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.
The reason we have to be forbearing and understanding even with blockheads - for - God is that it makes us look good and it prevents them being able to walk away with an undeserved "Draw" which they will later present as "The atheists couldn't refute my argument".
he knows who he is. If he even dares shows his face.
