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.
it also avoids infinite regress if we just start at our universe.
We are here now and whats the descriptor of our place in the universe? Like non living atoms build up to what we call "alive", Our universe was born from the less complex system before it.
No infinite regress. Not known either, but either way, the infinite regress argument is put to rest very quickly.
And where did that come from?
This is just an updated version of "the earth rests on the back of a giant turtle".
And Liberal -voting atheist Fundie. Though he did get the 'anti -theist' borrowed without credit snipe in there.
I don't know why you even started this thread. The argument has been done to death and at the best for the Theist side, goes nowhere, at worst, the claim of a complex creative intelligence with no origin as opposed to an emergence of 'matter' (which is mainly nothing acting like it is something) out of a nothing with the ability to look like 'something' doesn't favour the theist side at all.
I see no purpose in this thread at all other than seeing whether the mods will close it, thus providing evidence for your persecuted martyr claims.
I see no purpose for denying everything to meet the needs of your sect's central dogma. Your vain attempt to replace one statement of belief about god with another, equally unsupported, statement of belief about god.
"Some of us feel religion is do dangerous we must deny everything so they can't use it and make atheism harder to sell."
yeah, that sure has all of science behind it. The dude that said it must have walked on water too.
Agreed. Still, how did the state of existing begin? We just don't know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
That is no more difficult to answer than how did our Reality begin to exist. The favorite answer among your cohort is - "We Don't Know." We just know it does exist.
'We don't know' is the honest answer. 'We do know, on faith' is the dishonest one.
To go beyond that and engage in informed speculation is fine, however. But as said above, the theist side is losing ground, not gaining it.
In addition to the improbability of a god, add in the increasing conviction that a designed universe is not the convincing apologetic the Believer -side thought it was, and it is surely well known that attempts to find any spoor of God in the 5% reality that we call 'nature' has failed, being first struck down by science, and then by the law at Dover.
First cause (and that includes the Kalam argument) gets God -belief precisely nowhere.
What did I change? All I said was every post of yours seems to be the same. Just like your cohorts Mystic and Gldn. Methinks you didn't comprehend what I said.
Also, he didn't call you family members Nazi's, and he explained this to you in that thread... Seems you are the one changing what people have said, Arach.
What you said, was "no more reason to accept his view than accepting basing everything we say your (anti-religious) central dogma."
What I said, was that this is the same mess you respond to all atheists with, on a daily basis, on nearly every thread. So what's your point?
thats good, back peddle.
what you said was that you are putting me in the "god is everything" camp.
Agreed. Still, how did the state of existing begin? We just don't know.
Without getting too philosophical, this resembles the "If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound." Sound requires what Heidegger would call a Being existing over Time - a consciousness to detect it. This places consciousness at the center of Being (or existing).
Last edited by MysticPhD; 04-15-2019 at 12:35 PM..
Without getting too philosophical, this resembles the "If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound." Sound requires what Heidegger would call a Being existing over Time - a consciousness to detect it. This places consciousness at the center of Being.
I agree this is a philosophical question. However, I disagree with your main point (thread title).
just because the state of existing and living produces creation does NOT require that there be a separate Creator.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100
Agreed. Still, how did the state of existing begin? We just don't know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100
I agree this is a philosophical question. However, I disagree with your main point (thread title).
You agreed with what is essentially a restatement of the thread title. How do you reconcile this obvious contradiction of your own view?
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.
