We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Who created God?
| 160 | 21396 |
- 160 Replies
Kotoamatsuki is in the right. If his opinion states that humanity created the deities that we see today and saw yesterday, then his post is on topic.
"The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit.
So, either the mass that became the universe was there in hyper-dense form, it came from nowhere, or it was created. In the first case, the mass would have been so closely packed that individual particles would have violated their Rosche limits, which defines the point at which no more mass can be present in a given space. This would have caused them to instantly and violently annihilate themselves, which means they cease to exist, period. Second and third cases, mass from nowhere: impossible, unless you are a miracle worker, like God.
When you think of something being created it's not out of nothing but out of pre-existing materials.
We are talking about the creation of those pre-existing materials!
Actually in H-bombs most of the destructive power comes from fission no the fusion of the hydrogen. The hydrogen fusion is just used as a trigger for the uranium fission that does the actual damage.
No, it is the fusion. If we were debating in person, I would give you more detail, but on the forum I won't because I don't want to be labeled a terrorist for talking about nuclear weapon mechanics. Sorry.
As I explained to get heavier elements beyond hydrogen and AND helium requires the fusion in stars. The way you stating it is not how it works.
First, where did you suddenly get stars just microseconds after the creation of the universe? Second, hydrogen and helium are stable by themselves; they won't fuse with anything unless forced, like in a particle accelerator. The only form of helium that has any properties near those required is tritium, which is a somewhat less stable isotope of helium. It occurs in nature only in extremely minimal amounts; to get any useful amount for research, it must be synthesized or else painstakingly extracted.
As an aside to that last part, in WW2 the Germans actively sought tritium, also known as "heavy water," for use in their ultimately ill-fated atomic bomb project. The only place that they could get it was in a remote area of Norway, and there is a fascinating true story about how the local Resistance fighters stopped them.
1. The singularity (the hot dense state "rior" to the Big bang) that expanded into the universe.
2. We don't know yet, but as I said we have a number of hypotheses, one could even conclude that it was also ways there given we aren't dealing with time as we know it.
But where did all of that come from??
So why isn't gambling with dice a sure bet? Same laws of probability apply.
In the case of the universe your placing your bet after the dice have already been thrown. So what your doing is a misuse of probability.
This debate is from a third-person, "outside looking in" type perspective, so "after" is kind of irrelevant in your statement.
No the idea of quantum fluctuations is what's believe to have been the trigger for the Big Bang. The Big Bang did not create stars and planets. Those formed later after the universe began to cool. As it further cooled gravity was able to take hold of this matter allowing it to clump together. Eventually it became dense enough to enter into a state of fusion, thus a star was formed.
Either way, as you travel back through the history of this chain of events you will still eventually reach the beginning, the proverbial first domino, and at that point there will have to be something outside the Big Bang, outside the universe and time and space and dimensionality and everything else, that made that first domino, that laid the foundations, and that started the chain reaction. How will you explain the original creation of that first something out of the absolute deepest nothing there has ever been without there being a Supreme Being, God, that exists completely detached all origin and reality as our minds can comprehend?
[quote]Cheap shots are a tactic for the unthinking man. I have studied this theory. I do read quite a bit, and on top of that my father worked for NASA (no bull) and had access to info not commonly available to the public, which he and I would often discuss at length.
I think your full of crap now.
You, sir, are a conundrum. You freely accept and repeat an increasing unlikely theory that grows ever more complex and at the same time loses more and more evidence, yet you cannot accept the simple facts that there is someone that exists on the same plain of reality as yourself that can have an intelligent debate with you, and that said person's direct progenitor, who also inhabits the same plain of reality, worked at NASA.
As to your parting shot, really. Such a remark is only used as a smokescreen to cover a pell-mell retreat from a losing argument. Taking the low road like that will not get you to Scotland or anywhere else except a tarnished reputation. Please be more civil in the future - you're only hurting yourself otherwise.
However, the question of this thread is if God created everything, who created him, if you assume that the origin of the universe was God.
Hojoko, the question here is one of creation, be it of the universe or God. To answer the one, you must also answer the other.
How can something, be it some sort of universal architect, or a singularity, exist outside of time?
Eternity is beyond the comprehension of humans in our fallen state. For those who reach Heaven, the answers will be clarified once and for all. For everyone else, the nagging questions will be part of the torment of Hell.
That may actually be added incentive to live right and make your peace with God Almighty.
Not since 1961. Russia's 50MT Tsar Bomba received 97% of its energy from fusion alone. It was designed as a 100MT, using two stages of Fission. One stage of Fusion was half the output to begin with.
Your right, I guess a refinement to the statement would be most or some H-bombs work this way.
Though it doesn't really hurt my argument. The Big Bang wasn't an explosion and stars produce heavier elements through nuclear fusion. We've been able to produce synthetic elements in particle accelerators via nuclear fusion. Synthetic elements such as einsteinium and fermium have also been discovered in the wake of thermonuclear explosions.
Also, about the big bang. Isn't the idea that in quantum mechanics, some things randomly happen?
Being that it's part of the uncertainty principle yes it would have been regarded as a random change in the amount of energy.
The idea that there wasn't any time before the Big Bang for anything to happen sounds a little ridiculous, we can't even comprehend what timelessness/a singularity even is.
Since time and space are combined in spacetime you don't really have one without the other. So no universe = no space = no time.
How can something, be it some sort of universal architect, or a singularity, exist outside of time?
Singularities operated under quantum physics which doesn't necessarily require time as a factor.
Also, about the big bang. Isn't the idea that in quantum mechanics, some things randomly happen?
This sounds suspiciously like a blanket statement to cover glaring inconsistencies.
We've been able to produce synthetic elements in particle accelerators via nuclear fusion. Synthetic elements such as einsteinium and fermium have also been discovered in the wake of thermonuclear explosions.
Those barely last long enough to be detected, much less form the cosmos.
The idea that there wasn't any time before the Big Bang for anything to happen sounds a little ridiculous, we can't even comprehend what timelessness/a singularity even is.
If you can't comprehend it, how can you say it's ridiculous? People couldn't comprehend the Earth being round until Columbus proved it.
Since time and space are combined in spacetime you don't really have one without the other. So no universe = no space = no time.
How can something, be it some sort of universal architect, or a singularity, exist outside of time?
That is the realm of Eternity.
Cheap shots are a tactic for the unthinking man. I have studied this theory. I do read quite a bit, and on top of that my father worked for NASA (no bull) and had access to info not commonly available to the public, which he and I would often discuss at length.
Sorry, but I can't believe you that. Otherwise you wouldn't say:
spontaneously detonate into a hyper-massive fireball
Explosions are violent, uncontrolled, destructive things.
The Big Bang was an expansion, not a explosion with a "hayper-massive fireball"
How were those original, supposedly explosive elements formed if the big bang made everything?
Explosive elements? WTF? (btw, the theory says that there was a singularity that expanded, so there was something before the Big Bang...)
gradually increasing masses that eventually become planets, where more elements spawn
The heavier elements are created due to fusion in stars and supernovae. Or like Wiki says:
During the early phases of the Big Bang, nucleosynthesis of hydrogen nuclei resulted in the production of hydrogen-1 (protonium, 1H) and helium-4 (4He), as well as a smaller amount of deuterium (2H) and very minuscule amounts (on the order of 10â'10) of lithium and beryllium. Even smaller amounts of boron may have been produced in the Big Bang, since it has been observed in some very old stars, while carbon has not.[9] It is generally agreed that no heavier elements than boron were produced in the Big Bang. As a result, the primordial abundance of atoms (or ions) consisted of roughly 75% 1H, 25% 4He, and 0.01% deuterium, with only tiny traces of lithium, beryllium, and perhaps boron.[10] Subsequent enrichment of galactic halos occurred due to stellar nucleosynthesis and supernova nucleosynthesis.[11]
7. So who lit the fuse anyway?
Maybe a quantum fluctuation, maybe the collision of two p-branes. We don't know (yet).
So, either the mass that became the universe was there in hyper-dense form, it came from nowhere, or it was created. In the first case, the mass would have been so closely packed that individual particles would have violated their Rosche limits, which defines the point at which no more mass can be present in a given space. This would have caused them to instantly and violently annihilate themselves, which means they cease to exist, period. Second and third cases, mass from nowhere: impossible, unless you are a miracle worker, like God.
The first one is possible given time is at 0 and that matter/energy can not be created or destroyed. The first one also does not violate the Roche limit which you incorrectly define.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Roche%27s+limits
I'm glad that we can agree on something the last two aren't possible true nothing doesn't exist and as pointed out matter/energy can't be created. There is a hypothesis based on M theory where two membranes collided depositing energy from one to the other resulting in the singularity. So no one is claiming it came from nowhere.
We are talking about the creation of those pre-existing materials!
That's not possible.
No, it is the fusion. If we were debating in person, I would give you more detail, but on the forum I won't because I don't want to be labeled a terrorist for talking about nuclear weapon mechanics. Sorry.
Yes there are those that work as I described. I find your answer laughable. Though I was wrong in implying this was always the case as Armed_Blade was able to demonstrate.
First, where did you suddenly get stars just microseconds after the creation of the universe?
We didn't, it took several hundred million years before the first stars could form.
Second, hydrogen and helium are stable by themselves; they won't fuse with anything unless forced, like in a particle accelerator.
As they were masses together by gravity and became denser and thus hotter, with that heat they eventually entered into fusion.
But where did all of that come from??
This was your second question, we don't know for sure is the answer. Care to next make a God of the gaps argument for me to refute?
Either way, as you travel back through the history of this chain of events you will still eventually reach the beginning, the proverbial first domino, and at that point there will have to be something outside the Big Bang, outside the universe and time and space and dimensionality and everything else, that made that first domino, that laid the foundations, and that started the chain reaction. How will you explain the original creation of that first something out of the absolute deepest nothing there has ever been without there being a Supreme Being, God, that exists completely detached all origin and reality as our minds can comprehend?
I don't even attempt to at this point. Though I think it's absurd that it had to be a supreme being or any being for that matter. At each turn of our own advancement in knowledge we have found naturalistic explanations that were previously claimed to have required a god in order to happen and/or exist. I don't see any reason to think the "first domino" would be any different. It may be as simple as true nothing being an unstable state that could not exist, thus something had to exist.
You, sir, are a conundrum. You freely accept and repeat an increasing unlikely theory that grows ever more complex and at the same time loses more and more evidence, yet you cannot accept the simple facts that there is someone that exists on the same plain of reality as yourself that can have an intelligent debate with you, and that said person's direct progenitor, who also inhabits the same plain of reality, worked at NASA.
It's not an increasingly unlikely theory, it's the current leading theory. Statements like this and others that you have made only reinforce my statement that you full of crap when you claim to know what your talking about. As for you being the son of someone who works for NASA I really couldn't care less, other statements that you've made here already show just how ignorant you are. At least I hope it's just ignorance.
Those barely last long enough to be detected, much less form the cosmos.
Where do I say they did? They do demonstrate that your previous statement of an explosion not produce anything is inaccurate though and that nuclear fusion can produce other elements.
People couldn't comprehend the Earth being round until Columbus proved it.
Columbus wasn't the one who proved this. The earth being round was knowledge readily found in encyclopedias for nearly a thousand years prior to his voyage.
Sorry, but I can't believe you that. Otherwise you wouldn't say:
spontaneously detonate into a hyper-massive fireball
Explosions are violent, uncontrolled, destructive things.
The Big Bang was an expansion, not a explosion with a "hayper-massive fireball"
Hyper-massive is simply a description of size. Surely you don't think that an event spawning something the size of the universe would take place in a tiny area. As to explosions, they are all of the above, otherwise things wouldn't be destroyed by them. And for the picky among you, one, the "expansion" would still be hyper-massive, and two, it would be "exploding" outward. Don't be grammatical nit-pickers.
How were those original, supposedly explosive elements formed if the big bang made everything?
Explosive elements?(btw, the theory says that there was a singularity that expanded, so there was something before the Big Bang...)
Again, picky. But either way, where did the original elements and/or singularity come from??? That is the point here!
WTF?
NOT ACCEPTABLE!!! Please don't ruin this discussion.
During the early phases of the Big Bang, nucleosynthesis of hydrogen nuclei resulted in the production of hydrogen-1 (protonium, 1H) and helium-4 (4He), as well as a smaller amount of deuterium (2H) and very minuscule amounts (on the order of 10â�'10) of lithium and beryllium. Even smaller amounts of boron may have been produced in the Big Bang, since it has been observed in some very old stars, while carbon has not.[9] It is generally agreed that no heavier elements than boron were produced in the Big Bang. As a result, the primordial abundance of atoms (or ions) consisted of roughly 75% 1H, 25% 4He, and 0.01% deuterium, with only tiny traces of lithium, beryllium, and perhaps boron.[10] Subsequent enrichment of galactic halos occurred due to stellar nucleosynthesis and supernova nucleosynthesis.
Still doesn't answer where the original source materials came from.
maybe the collision of two p-branes.
Har dee har har. Not.
So, either the mass that became the universe was there in hyper-dense form, it came from nowhere, or it was created. In the first case, the mass would have been so closely packed that individual particles would have violated their Rosche limits, which defines the point at which no more mass can be present in a given space. This would have caused them to instantly and violently annihilate themselves, which means they cease to exist, period. Second and third cases, mass from nowhere: impossible, unless you are a miracle worker, like God.
The first one is possible given time is at 0 and that matter/energy can not be created or destroyed. The first one also does not violate the Roche limit which you incorrectly define.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Roche%27s+limits
First of all, where did that hyper-dense piece of mass at time=0 come from? As far as the Roche limits, I read the definition you linked to, and my statement does not contradict it. From the definition:
The shortest distance at which a satellite not held together by any force other than its own gravity can orbit another celestial body without being torn apart by the tidal force between them.
This is true on all levels, from galactic to sub-atomic. The "tidal forces" are a product of the individual electromagnetic field of a given mass. A simple demonstration is that you cannot put two marbles into the space occupied by one at the same time. When two masses come into close contact, there is electromagnetic interaction; but if they are forced into direct contact by an outside force, the Roche limits violate and the result is the instantaneous conversion of both masses into energy. There is currently research and development being done into using this very process to create power in fusion reactors.
There is a hypothesis based on M theory where two membranes collided depositing energy from one to the other resulting in the singularity.
So where did the membranes come from? Sooner or later, you will still reach that "first domino" point.
We are talking about the creation of those pre-existing materials!
That's not possible.
Why? The question here is the creation of the universe and its origins. That includes the pre-existing materials used in the supposed Big Bang. Therefore, it is not only possible, it is the case at hand.
No, it is the fusion. If we were debating in person, I would give you more detail, but on the forum I won't because I don't want to be labeled a terrorist for talking about nuclear weapon mechanics. Sorry.
I find your answer laughable.
Discretion is the better part of valor. The government has been known to monitor internet activity like this, and I'm not taking any chances. This is not an excuse, this is not paranoia; this is simply a precaution. If that rankles you, well, can't help you there.
where did you suddenly get stars just microseconds after the creation of the universe?
We didn't, it took several hundred million years before the first stars could form.
The theory says that most elements up to Boron were created in the Big Bang, which was supposed to be over very quickly (like, seconds), but some of those same elements were supposedly created by the stars millions of years later. That spells inconsistency.
hydrogen and helium are stable by themselves; they won't fuse with anything unless forced, like in a particle accelerator.
As they were masses together by gravity and became denser and thus hotter, with that heat they eventually entered into fusion.
The force of gravity is not nearly strong enough to violate the Roche limit and induce fusion. If it were, stable mass would be the exception, not the rule.
But where did all of that come from??
This was your second question, we don't know for sure is the answer. Care to next make a God of the gaps argument for me to refute?
Correction: YOU don't know for sure. I, on the other hand, believe the story of Creation as presented in the Bible. With it, there are no gaps. God created. Period. Proceed to HiStory of man.
It may be as simple as true nothing being an unstable state that could not exist, thus something had to exist.
If that were true, it would be impossible to operate a vacuum chamber or have any empty space. Additionally, that would require something to come from nothing, which you agreed with me is impossible.
People couldn't comprehend the Earth being round until Columbus proved it.
Columbus wasn't the one who proved this. The earth being round was knowledge readily found in encyclopedias for nearly a thousand years prior to his voyage.
Check your history. People were executed for saying the Earth was round before it was proven.
Either way, as you travel back through the history of this chain of events you will still eventually reach the beginning, the proverbial first domino, and at that point there will have to be something outside the Big Bang, outside the universe and time and space and dimensionality and everything else, that made that first domino, that laid the foundations, and that started the chain reaction. How will you explain the original creation of that first something out of the absolute deepest nothing there has ever been without there being a Supreme Being, God, that exists completely detached all origin and reality as our minds can comprehend?
I don't even attempt to at this point. Though I think it's absurd that it had to be a supreme being or any being for that matter.
Why is it absurd? Ockham's Razor dictates that the simplest answer is the most likely. Which is more complicated here: undefined forces coming together to make a hyper-dense piece of mass that survives violating the Roche limit and suddenly expends at an almost infinite rate, multiplies its own mass, forms complex structures like stars and planets, which grow increasingly complex systems of their own, and then by the way you get life with it too, or, "In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth." Period. Next verse. And if you want to argue the laws of science point, Who created and established them for the universe to run on in the first place?
It's not an increasingly unlikely theory, it's the current leading theory. Statements like this and others that you have made only reinforce my statement that you full of crap when you claim to know what your talking about. As for you being the son of someone who works for NASA I really couldn't care less, other statements that you've made here already show just how ignorant you are. At least I hope it's just ignorance.
If it's not increasingly unlikely, how come so many respected scientists have abandoned it in recent times? As to the rest of your comment, ignorance is relative. Compared to me, a toddler is ignorant. Compared to Einstein, I'm ignorant. But I at least try to learn as much as I can. From the sound of your posts here, you only learn what fits your preconceived notions of the world that have been reinforced by public education and liberal teachers. Could it be that you hope I'm the ignorant one here because if I'm not that means your theory is wrong and that you are the ignorant one here? Why don't you research the Creationist standpoint as presented by those who can explain it better than myself and then decide what you believe before criticizing me for having the opposite view?
Correction: YOU don't know for sure. I, on the other hand, believe the story of Creation as presented in the Bible. With it, there are no gaps. God created. Period. Proceed to HiStory of man.
You don't know for sure either. You believe that. That's a difference.
Also please notice that 'not knowing for sure' still leaves room for evidence. If we can't explain every detail, that doesn't mean it's completely wrong.
And, sorry if that offends you, but saying "god did it" always sounds like a last desperate excuse to me.
You don't know for sure either. You believe that. That's a difference.
My belief draws its evidence from the wonderful complexity of the universe. That couldn't be random.
And, sorry if that offends you, but saying "god did it" always sounds like a last desperate excuse to me.
Oh ye of little faith...
By the way, I know from personal experience that there are plenty of things God doesn't do.
If that were true, it would be impossible to operate a vacuum chamber or have any empty space.
No matter does not mean true nothing.
My belief draws its evidence from the wonderful complexity of the universe. That couldn't be random.
Belief has no evidence, by definition. All the things that in your eyes are evidence for your belief, are actually only parts of your belief. If you believe in a creation by a deity, and that said deity has always been there and always will, I will respect it. But there is no way you can expect us to see the world with your eyes, no way you can expect us to stop trying to find out how the universe began. Who knows, maybe you are right and we will find out that the big bang can be traced down to the action of a higher being? Then you will be able to say 'I told you, but you wanted it the hard way', but not before.
Oh ye of little faith...
Correction: of no faith
Again, picky. But either way, where did the original elements and/or singularity come from??? That is the point here!
No it's not being picky, your getting it wrong. The Big Bang theory doesn't go back to answer the question of where the singularity came from. As stated a number of times we don't know for sure yet.
Har dee har har. Not.
He's not joking. It's another name for membranes in M Theory.
This is true on all levels, from galactic to sub-atomic. The "tidal forces" are a product of the individual electromagnetic field of a given mass. A simple demonstration is that you cannot put two marbles into the space occupied by one at the same time. When two masses come into close contact, there is electromagnetic interaction; but if they are forced into direct contact by an outside force, the Roche limits violate and the result is the instantaneous conversion of both masses into energy. There is currently research and development being done into using this very process to create power in fusion reactors.
No it doesn't apply here, not only are we not dealing with orbiting celestial bodies the fundamental forces were unified at this point.
the Roche limits violate and the result is the instantaneous conversion of both masses into energy.
I couldn't help but notice this part. So your saying we have experiments where this is violated and the result is exactly what we would expect to find at the point of the singularity. At this point all there was is energy.
Check your history. People were executed for saying the Earth was round before it was proven.
I did check my history. It said you were in error.
Why is it absurd? Ockham's Razor dictates that the simplest answer is the most likely. Which is more complicated here: undefined forces coming together to make a hyper-dense piece of mass that survives violating the Roche limit and suddenly expends at an almost infinite rate, multiplies its own mass, forms complex structures like stars and planets, which grow increasingly complex systems of their own, and then by the way you get life with it too, or, "In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth." Period. Next verse. And if you want to argue the laws of science point, Who created and established them for the universe to run on in the first place?
Given we have evidence supporting the first one and God would have to be an immensely complex entity in himself, I'm going to say Occam's Razor sides with the Big Bang model.
If it's not increasingly unlikely, how come so many respected scientists have abandoned it in recent times?
I'm not aware of any who have.
Oh ye of little faith...
**** right I'm not going to believe something without proof.
As to the rest of your comment, ignorance is relative. Compared to me, a toddler is ignorant. Compared to Einstein, I'm ignorant. But I at least try to learn as much as I can. From the sound of your posts here, you only learn what fits your preconceived notions of the world that have been reinforced by public education and liberal teachers. Could it be that you hope I'm the ignorant one here because if I'm not that means your theory is wrong and that you are the ignorant one here? Why don't you research the Creationist standpoint as presented by those who can explain it better than myself and then decide what you believe before criticizing me for having the opposite view?
You ignorant of the theories your claiming to know, as in your lack knowledge of them. It's not my theory, I didn't come up with it I'm just looking at the evidence for it, something God is lacking. As for the creationist views I have looked into them before and find them to be some of the most dishonest, ill qualified, Bible thumpers I've ever had the displeasure to learn about. Nearly if not everything I have seen them spew up has been thoroughly debunked.
Oh ye of little faith...
Correction: of no faith
Sad...
Har dee har har. Not.
He's not joking. It's another name for membranes in M Theory.
P-Branes... wow. They must have been really desperate for a name.
No it doesn't apply here, not only are we not dealing with orbiting celestial bodies the fundamental forces were unified at this point.
It applies to sub-atomics too. All "orbit systems" from particles to planets run on the same pattern and rules.
the Roche limits violate and the result is the instantaneous conversion of both masses into energy.
I couldn't help but notice this part. So your saying we have experiments where this is violated and the result is exactly what we would expect to find at the point of the singularity. At this point all there was is energy.
Violating the Roche limit turns mass into energy, not energy into mass as the theory requires.
Given we have evidence supporting the first one and God would have to be an immensely complex entity in himself, I'm going to say Occam's Razor sides with the Big Bang model.
God is a simple concept: infinite power, wisdom, and care.
**** right I'm not going to believe something without proof.
Implied cursing does not give you any proof.
It's not my theory, I didn't come up with it I'm just looking at the evidence for it
I didn't say it was your theory. By saying "your" in this case, I am saying it is the view you are endorsing in this debate.
As for the creationist views I have looked into them before and find them to be some of the most dishonest, ill qualified, Bible thumpers I've ever had the displeasure to learn about. Nearly if not everything I have seen them spew up has been thoroughly debunked.
Guess that haters gonna hate. I admit that there are "Bible thumpers" and even charlatans out there who try to use Creationism and similar views to their advantage. They are not good representatives for this view. These are not the people to whom I was referring.
As far as anything else goes, the flavor of your posts prompted me to look at your profile page. My opinion is that you are a hard-liner who simply does not wish to acknowledge any view as valid except his own. It also sounds like you are quite bitter in regards to all ideas involving God. For that, I can't help but feel a little sorry for you.
It seems apparent now that convincing you of God and Creation is beyond the scope of my admittedly limited capacities, so I will end this series of exchanges with my thanks for a good debate and hopes that you will have a good life. I also hope that one day you will see the Gospel light; however, neither I nor anyone else cannot force you to do so.
God bless.
A cosmic jewish zombie who is his own father and can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and drink his blood, while telepathically telling him that you accept him as your master, so that he can remove an evil force from your soul which is present in all humanity because a woman made of one rib bone and a mound of dirt was tricked into eating fruit from a magical tree by a talking snake...
Yeah that makes sense
Implied cursing does not give you any proof.
First, he knows that, and second, where is your proof?
My opinion is that you are a hard-liner who simply does not wish to acknowledge any view as valid except his own.
Your opinion is wrong?
Also, appreciate the hypocricy.
It also sounds like you are quite bitter in regards to all ideas involving God.
There a valid reasons for that attitude, you know.
For example.
Indeed, there are arguments that Christians do not follow that idealogy, but what about if God didn't follow previous Christians' idealogy? If he didn't, he didn't do anything to stop people being murdered in the name of him, he didn't bother aiding those resisting Christianity with undeniable proof. If you follow Christianity, then sorry, but you are siding with Gods contradictory and pretty merciless behaviour (or lack of behaviour).
Purely philosophical.
But, there is also evidence and proof pointing towards a more logical path that is mutually exclusive to religion.
It seems apparent now that convincing you of God and Creation is beyond the scope of my admittedly limited capacities,
You lack proof or evidence. It's quite an easy thing to come across for most things, and it's generally the only thing people would need to willingly believe in this deity.
so I will end this series of exchanges with my thanks for a good debate
It can't really be considered a debate when it's two sides, but one of them only expresses their point, not why it's valid.
God is a simple concept: infinite power, wisdom, and care.
Says the previous quote.
God is a simple concept: infinite power, wisdom, and care.
Says every flaw apparent on / in / with Earth right now.
Sad...
How so?
My belief draws its evidence from the wonderful complexity of the universe. That couldn't be random.
Say what now?
Simple question - can you prove God?
Simple request - prove God.
- H
You must be logged in to post a reply!