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.
Wrong. It's the "Divinity" part. Why call the universe and all that exists Divine. That's EXACTLY a religious word.
You seem to have an allergy to the word Creator, but what you call the universe or existence is definitely our Creator!!! Your bias is strong as is that of most atheists, but it is only a bias!!!
You seem to have an allergy to the word Creator, but what you call the universe or existence is definitely our Creator!!! Your bias is strong as is that of most atheists, but it is only a bias!!!
I used it to AVOID using Creator since you atheists seem to invariably associate it with Creationism! Whatever word you prefer, as our Creator it is our God in the most common usage of that term across ALL beliefs. So GOD definitely EXISTS!
I used it to AVOID using Creator since you atheists seem to invariably associate it with Creationism! Whatever word you prefer, as our Creator it is our God in the most common usage of that term across ALL beliefs.
The point is as simple as any other time. You claim the universe has some intelligence to it, it remains a claim based only in personal feelings. There's not a single good reason to claim the universe is god, divine, an intentional creator, a deity, outside of those feelings. When/If the data is otherwise, everyone will look at it again to determine if that can be ascertained with certainty. We non-believers in claims of divinity, are not bonded in any way save for the effort not to live in competition with the known reality, as believers are determined to do, by convincing themselves they have some special tools to detect "the real" reality.
The point is as simple as any other time. You claim the universe has some intelligence to it, it remains a claim based only in personal feelings. There's not a single good reason to claim the universe is god, divine, an intentional creator, a deity, outside of those feelings. When/If the data is otherwise, everyone will look at it again to determine if that can be ascertained with certainty. We non-believers in claims of divinity, are not bonded in any way save for the effort not to live in competition with the known reality, as believers are determined to do, by convincing themselves they have some special tools to detect "the real" reality.
It is not simple. It is simple-minded to expect intelligence to "emerge" (I can only assume magically) from an UNintelligent Reality that is nonetheless "intelligible" to that "emergent" intelligence.
So divinity is your solution to where intelligence came from? Talk about simple minded.
There is nothing simple-minded about believing intelligence came from intelligence. It certainly is simple-minded to think intelligence came from unintelligence or nothing, IMO!
That is your opinion. But the logic means something must exist, Punkt. That logic means it could be a god, it may not be a god. If you want to argue it is a god, you need to provide evidence why it is a god. Obviously not, as your creator of everything includes all the different, mutually exclusive options I gave. And please, do not bother using your inapt music analogy, which only applies to religious beliefs, not the mutually exclusive options. Zeus is not Yahweh is not Mbombo, usw.
post #71 below posited an either-or construct. it states there must have been either __A___ or __B___.
i am pointing out that yes it is B. "eternal something" is an excellent concise apt and accurate descriptor.
descriptor of that which gives rise to everything that exists. that "eternal something" is unborn.
whereas everything that proceeds from it "all that exists" is born from it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
The Christian god created everything, therefore everything is evidence for the Christian god, not yours. You can also substitute any other creator god to refute both yours and the Abrahamic god. And logically, as there must have been either absolute nothing (including gods), which would be unstable considering there would be no rules to determine how absolutely nothing behaves; or an eternal something (no gods required to explain existence), then existence is evidence for no gods. So existence itself is meaningless as evidence. But as the no gods argument is more simple than a first cause creator god that just knew how things worked, no gods is the more probable explanation for existence than your assertion.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 11-17-2022 at 08:18 PM..
There is nothing simple-minded about believing intelligence came from intelligence. It certainly is simple-minded to think intelligence came from unintelligence or nothing, IMO!
I suppose gold didn't come from cosmic dust? It must have come from the giant, all powerful cosmic foam gold divinity.
I suppose gold didn't come from cosmic dust? It must have come from the giant, all powerful cosmic foam gold divinity.
False comparative. Intelligence cannot be shown to come from cosmic dust by any known physical laws.
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.
