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.
Water flows to the lowest point and yet rises to the highest point.
It's not a one way street. I like knowing Arron's staff that budded, kept in the Ark of the Covenant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne
Gravity doesn't cause water to rise or anything else. No idea where you are getting that from.
Water rises yes, in the the form of condensation, but it's not caused by gravity.
My first sentence was looking at how plants grow, as they grow toward the gravitational drawing of light. And also rest when light is not present. And water is also required for that growth to happen. And produce juicy fruit.
My second sentence was a simple observation of filling a glass of water.
There was either absolutely nothing (including gods and rules explaining how absolutely nothing behaves), or something always existed. These are the only two logical possibilities.
If there is nothing to say how absolutely nothing behaves, then that does not prevent something coming from nothing.
No god is therefore required to explain existence, it is a logical necessity.
So where do properties and behaviors described by laws come from? If you argue a god is required to create them, then where do the properties and behaviors of this god come from? If you argue they are inherent in this gods existence, then we can argue the same, they are inherent in existence itself, so again, no god required.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The above rationale is WHY either position can only be asserted, NOT proven, especially since the forum does NOT allow debate about why existence itself is NOT a God relative to us mere mortal (but amazingly aware) beings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
I find it strange I did a third option. And your simple question begging 'creator, therefore god' has been explained and refuted so many times (also true for atheism AND infers most gods are not gods), so please spare us from your persecution complex, you can not blame us because you insist on hijacking almost every thread.
I also find it is interesting that you did not address the actual content of my post.
I do address your content but everything above the bold in it depends on your assertion that existence CANNOT BE God. The forum protects your bald-faced assertion by preventing anyone from asserting otherwise. But that is just your assertion as the bold reveals that your "no God required" is a nonsequitur based on an unprovable assertion.
I do address your content but everything above the bold in it depends on your assertion that existence CANNOT BE God. The forum protects your bald-faced assertion by preventing anyone from asserting otherwise. But that is just your assertion as the bold reveals that your "no God required" is a nonsequitur based on an unprovable assertion.
But existence IS Brhman. There is nothing other than existence, and it is known as Brhman. If it cannot be true, why?
Naturalism is defined as the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes.
This is how philosophical naturalism is defined. This is not exactly a reasonable idea and certainly is not a position that science takes. So who care?
Science operates under methodological naturalism.
Quote:
Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses. To avoid these traps, scientists assume that all causes are empirical and naturalistic, which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically.
My first sentence was looking at how plants grow, as they grow toward the gravitational drawing of light. And also rest when light is not present. And water is also required for that growth to happen. And produce juicy fruit.
My second sentence was a simple observation of filling a glass of water.
Plants growing toward light is not caused by gravity.
I do address your content but everything above the bold in it depends on your assertion that existence CANNOT BE God.
An assertion I have NEVER made. Perhaps if you address the actual content instead of your usual excuses and dismissals?
I HAVE pointed out the flaws in your argument, where most gods can not be gods, and that your position is also true for atheism, making atheism both true and false at the same time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The forum protects your bald-faced assertion by preventing anyone from asserting otherwise. But that is just your assertion as the bold reveals that your "no God required" is a nonsequitur based on an unprovable assertion.
It is neither a bald-faced assertion nor a non sequitur, it is a logical necessity. There was either absolutely nothing, or an eternal existence. Punkt. They are the only two options, and no god is allowed in the first, and one is not required to explain the second.
An assertion I have NEVER made. Perhaps if you address the actual content instead of your usual excuses and dismissals?
I HAVE pointed out the flaws in your argument, where most gods can not be gods, and that your position is also true for atheism, making atheism both true and false at the same time.
It is neither a bald-faced assertion nor a non sequitur, it is a logical necessity. There was either absolutely nothing, or an eternal existence. Punkt. They are the only two options, and no god is allowed in the first, and one is not required to explain the second.
Not rue. The issue with the second option is not its explanation it is it's identity which you and this forum arbitrarily decide that it is not God coming into existence. Your silly nonsense about the other gods not being valid because of that is pure hogwash. Of course they can be valid they just came into existence. But since they are just human imaginations it is irrelevant whether or not they can be valid.
It was quite clear what the poster meant to say, plants are drawn to light, gravitate towards light.
No, that's not what the other poster said.
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.
