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.
Since both ideas are illogical, obviously, neither answer is correct.
Therefore, there must be a third possibility that neither of us has even thought of yet.
THAT, Jimmie, is logic.
Whatever that third option is, I am sure science will eventually uncover it and I am sure it will be fascinating.
No, you're wrong (again). Since infinite causation is illogical, the only logical conclusion is a creator that has always existed (or exists outside of time, as we know it). "We don't know" is not a viable answer.
Usually, I am inclined to let people who feel a certain way speak for themselves.
However, based on my experiences, I think that a lot of people have a psychological need to believe in a creator. Centuries of religious tradition and authority have reinforced this belief in society. People don't realize that their imaginations and wishes deceive them about reality.
Perhaps the "needs" and our imagination are proof of a creator.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer
Plus, many people have simply not looked into the scientific evidence which calls into question many of the things which have long been attributed to a creator.
To come up with reasonable explanations? How kind of you. While the theists accuse us of seeing alternatives to an act of creation because we 'had a bad experience with Church'. How typical.
No, you're wrong (again). Since infinite causation is illogical, the only logical conclusion is a creator that has always existed (or exists outside of time, as we know it). "We don't know" is not a viable answer.
No, you're wrong (consistently). "We don't know" [particularly when followed by "yet" or "but we're researching it right now"] IS a viable answer which has been expressed many, many times before in the scientific world, until research provided (scientific) revelation.
You are also (several times in a row now) still wrong about there being only two possibilities. Of course there aren't necessarily only two possibilities, why would there be?
"If we don't know, it has to be supernatural" is NOT logical. At all. Ever. Why on earth would it be? There are only ever two possible answers to a question: one that's already been put forth by someone as a theory, and another that's entirely mythological? Now THAT doesn't make sense. New ideas come from different people all the time.
"Either God did it, or it's only one other possible option...period" is about as illogical as things come, no matter what god you're talking about. For example, would you be good with the idea that if we don't know what caused Grandfather's cancer, it must have been caused by the giant turtle whose back the earth sits on? Or could there be a third option (in this case, scientific/biological)? I'm going with Door Number Three.
I think the OP believes that because his conscience tells him there must be something better. Possibly some ultimate "good".
Wow. You're really out there. My post is implying that I wish there were an afterlife, but I am sad that I have to accept that there isn't. What Does an ultimate "good" have to do with anything? Wishing for an ultimate good shows your bias. Why are we even responding to this guys posts?! He's in the wrong forum.
Wow. You're really out there. My post is implying that I wish there were an afterlife, but I am sad that I have to accept that there isn't. What Does an ultimate "good" have to do with anything? Wishing for an ultimate good shows your bias. Why are we even responding to this guys posts?! He's in the wrong forum.
Since you make that point about afterlifes, it seems instinctively that we are sad at the thought that death will be the end. But the idea of an eternal afterlife becomes pretty appalling when you think about it. It might be nice to have another (better) life after we die, but that itself would have to be finite.
As to why we keep responding to Jimmie...we have to, even if he ignores ours, all the time he making assertions. There is this worry that simply not responding will be treated as a "Win".
Since you make that point about afterlifes, it seems instinctively that we are sad at the thought that death will be the end. But the idea of an eternal afterlife becomes pretty appalling when you think about it. It might be nice to have another (better) life after we die, but that itself would have to be finite.
Often wondered about that. Shouldn't death for believers be a celebration instead?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
As to why we keep responding to Jimmie...we have to, even if he ignores ours, all the time he making assertions. There is this worry that simply not responding will be treated as a "Win".
He's losing so badly here yet he keeps coming back for more.
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.
Why on earth would it be? There are only ever two possible answers to a question: one that's already been put forth by someone as a theory, and another that's entirely mythological? Now THAT doesn't make sense. New ideas come from different people all the time. 
