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.
You didn't get what i meant. Let me clarify. Tell god you don't want him in your life, do everything in your power to stray away from him, see where it gets you, and realize the truth.
Well, once again: Satanists obviously directly tell God they don't want Him in their lives, at least many do, because many believe in Satan because of the Abrahamic God belief. Making many Satanists, ironically, just as firm believers in God as, say, Christians. (There is a subset of Satanism that doesn't literally believe in God OR the devil, that's why I'm saying "many" and not "all.")
But to address your "...and realize the truth" part: you specifically said the person wouldn't live long...not that the person would realize the truth.
Unfortunately, even that statement, that you will "realize the truth," isn't accurate, as many, many, many people give up a belief in God, and don't "realize the truth," well, depending upon what that actually means. If you're saying people move away from a God belief but then are drawn back because they figure out they were wrong, and God is the truth, millions of atheists who die atheists after having lived for many decades as atheists would seem to challenge that assertion.
God created everything from nothing. He never said how he did it. That is why I do not disbelieve the big bang theory, although I do believe there may be a more logical reasoning to the creation. I do for a fact know that Time is a very great servant of the creator, and also of his creations.
Do you have a way of demonstrating this, or is this simply an empty assertion?
The creator (of anything) is greater than the created.
Therefore the creator of the universe has a cause which is greater than itself. As did that super-supernatural creator. As did that ultra-super-supernatural creator. And so on. Obviously, these ideas of yours cause all sorts of issues.
Quote:
We observe these things every day. Therefore, it's not impossible that the creator could be exempt from the properties that effect the created, at least to some degree.
This does not follow. In fact, it outright contradicts your claim that everything has a cause. That particular logical fallacy is called special pleading - basically the art of making up excuses and exceptions when one doesn't like the conclusions logic is leading them to.
If we can't define what "greater" means, and we can't define what a "higher plane" is, then how on earth could this argument of a creator being "greater" than its creation have any basis at all?
It is wish fulfillment - no need for reason or logic. If one makes up enough excuses eventually the cognitive dissonance goes away, at least if that person repeats them often enough and tunes out anything which might make one question them.
Therefore the creator of the universe has a cause which is greater than itself. As did that super-supernatural creator. As did that ultra-super-supernatural creator. And so on. Obviously, these ideas of yours cause all sorts of issues.
This does not follow. In fact, it outright contradicts your claim that everything has a cause. That particular logical fallacy is called special pleading - basically the art of making up excuses and exceptions when one doesn't like the conclusions logic is leading them to.
It's not special pleading if there is a reason for the exemption. The creator (of anything) is greater than the created. Therefore, it is possible the creator has always existed (as some have said matter/energy has always existed) or exists outside of time as we know it.
It's not special pleading if there is a reason for the exemption. The creator (of anything) is greater than the created. Therefore, it is possible the creator has always existed (as some have said matter/energy has always existed) or exists outside of time as we know it.
Not comparable since there is acceptable proof that matter and energy exist so it's not a reach to conclude they have always existed.
It's not special pleading if there is a reason for the exemption. The creator (of anything) is greater than the created.
But there is no reason for the exemption. You are simply repeating this phrase over and over in a mantra like fashion, and then simply skipping over and ignoring any post (mine included) that questions what you actually think it means.... or highlights the flaw in it.
Since you dodge-ignored it the last time I am happy to repeat myself:
Firstly the mantra assumes a creator. So you are engaged in circular argument. You are preassuming the truth of the argument that the argument is trying to establish the truth of. Classic circular reasoning and special pleading.
Secondly though I am questioning what you mean by "greater" as clearly this is a value judgement. I could create a bulldozer tomorrow. Which one of us is "greater"? Me or the bulldozer? Surely this depends entirely on my definition of "greater". If I judge it on, say, pure raw strength, the bulldozer wins hands down.
But the point is that we are the only "creating" entity we know of. So your generalization of "The creator is always greater than the created" is based on a sample set of ONE. That is not enough to assert a rule.
Thirdly you are conflating too many meanings of "create" here. When I "create" a watch I am merely reassembling already existing matter into a new form. That is not the same kind of "creation" that you are talking about with your god hypothesis. So you are making a generalized rule, based off a sample set of ONE, about one meaning of "create" and then simply copy-and-paste porting it over to a different meaning of the word "create" and hoping no one will notice because it is the same _word_ in each case even if the meaning is different.
But as I said that is not the bigger fail in your reasoning. The circular argument is. You are assuming a creator in order to use your made up "rule" to make comments evidencing the existence of that creator. That does not work.
It's not special pleading if there is a reason for the exemption. The creator (of anything) is greater than the created. Therefore, it is possible the creator has always existed (as some have said matter/energy has always existed) or exists outside of time as we know it.
But there is no reason for the exemption. You are simply repeating this phrase over and over in a mantra like fashion, and then simply skipping over and ignoring any post (mine included) that questions what you actually think it means.... or highlights the flaw in it.
Since you dodge-ignored it the last time I am happy to repeat myself:
Firstly the mantra assumes a creator. So you are engaged in circular argument. You are preassuming the truth of the argument that the argument is trying to establish the truth of. Classic circular reasoning and special pleading.
That's because everything has a source. Why would the universe/humanity/life be different?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
Secondly though I am questioning what you mean by "greater" as clearly this is a value judgement. I could create a bulldozer tomorrow. Which one of us is "greater"? Me or the bulldozer? Surely this depends entirely on my definition of "greater". If I judge it on, say, pure raw strength, the bulldozer wins hands down.
But the point is that we are the only "creating" entity we know of. So your generalization of "The creator is always greater than the created" is based on a sample set of ONE. That is not enough to assert a rule.
You are greater than the bulldozer for many reasons. The bulldozer can't create itself; it can't operate without you; and it can't reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
Thirdly you are conflating too many meanings of "create" here. When I "create" a watch I am merely reassembling already existing matter into a new form. That is not the same kind of "creation" that you are talking about with your god hypothesis. So you are making a generalized rule, based off a sample set of ONE, about one meaning of "create" and then simply copy-and-paste porting it over to a different meaning of the word "create" and hoping no one will notice because it is the same _word_ in each case even if the meaning is different.
But as I said that is not the bigger fail in your reasoning. The circular argument is. You are assuming a creator in order to use your made up "rule" to make comments evidencing the existence of that creator. That does not work.
Although the word create may be innappropriate according to the dictionary, we still use that word to describe something that is put together.
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.
