Originally posted by ahosyneyThat logic leads us back to the fact that your god would need to be created too.
I think we have been through that before...
Give an example of something you know that is not created. That came by itself like that.
Even the universe which you said your are part of has a start, which mean it came into being. So did it come into being by itself, or something else cause it to be created.
If it came to being by itself then you can call it GOD if you want.
If not then it is created. And there is creator for it.
Why would I call the universe god just because it came into being by itself? Is the defining quality of your god that he came into being by himself?
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanYou are talking about my GOD is it is mine 🙂
That logic leads us back to the fact that your god would need to be created too.
Why would I call the universe god just because it came into being by itself? Is the defining quality of your god that he came into being by himself?
I'm talking about the creator. I didn't call it GOD.
We can agree on a definition of the GOD.
GOD is only one it cann't be more than one.
GOD is eternal it cann't have a begining.
GOD is the creator of everything else.
So every being meets this criteria you can call it GOD.
If the universe meets these criteria why not. But does it..
1 edit
Originally posted by ahosyneyI can't continue this, you're going round in illogical circles and changing the definitions. It's doing my blood pressure no good.
You are talking about my GOD is it is mine 🙂
I'm talking about the creator. I didn't call it GOD.
We can agree on a definition of the GOD.
GOD is only one it cann't be more than one.
GOD is eternal it cann't have a begining.
GOD is the creator of everything else.
So every being meets this criteria you can call it GOD.
If the universe meets these criteria why not. But does it..
1 edit
Originally posted by ahosyneyHaving a discussion with you is almost creepy. 😵
You are the one who put yourself into the circular reasining. You want to belive that the universe is eternal but you cann't accept that for GOD.
1) There can only be one eternal and all powerful being, and that is
GOD. Right?
2) The universe could be GOD in your view, if it wasn't for the fact that
you know the universe isn't eternal, and GOD has to be the most
powerful being.
3) GOD must therefore be eternal.
4) GOD must therefore have created the universe.
5) The universe is not eternal based on the fact that GOD created it.
Don't you see? Your logic eats itself. 😵
I don't care a rats poo how the universe came into being or if it always
was. I'm only stating the simple fact that science doesn't know, and
there's not a single religion in the world that I've heard of that can be
proven to hold the answer at this day and age. Why are we even having
this discussion? 🙄
I'm out of here. 😵
Originally posted by stockenDo you want the answer?
Having a discussion with you is almost creepy. 😵
1) There can only be one eternal and all powerful being, and that is
GOD. Right?
2) The universe could be GOD in your view, if it wasn't for the fact that
you know the universe isn't eternal, and GOD has to be the most
powerful being.
3) GOD must therefore be eternal.
4) GOD must therefore have cr ...[text shortened]... t this day and age. Why are we even having
this discussion? 🙄
I'm out of here. 😵
There is no GOD, be happy , you are not commited to anyone by anything. You can do all what you want.
Be free.
1 edit
Originally posted by ahosyneyHa ha ha ha
If you agree with me I can show more evidences. If you don't agree then you will not accept them.
I'm sorry. I really shouldn't laugh, but you're hilarious. Only religious people
stick with the old when new evidence appear on the scene. If you have
indisputable facts to show that GOD exists and has to be a concious creator,
by all means, do tell.
But don't go pointing to some religious text, or use your own assertion that
there is a GOD to "prove" that there is a GOD. I can't stand that.
Addition: Though, if I were to "prove" that there isn't a GOD, I
couldn't use the fact that there is no GOD available to say there isn't a
GOD. See? We really can't tell. 🙂 Using our minds alone will not do. It
has to be tangible evidence.
3 edits
Originally posted by stockenYes of course you will not accept my text, you will not accept prophets, you will not accept that, because it say there is GOD, but you still want me to give you an evidence.
Ha ha ha ha
I'm sorry. I really shouldn't laugh, but you're hilarious. Only religious people
stick with the old when new evidence appear on the scene. If you have
indisputable facts to show that GOD exists and has to be a concious creator,
by all means, do tell.
But don't go pointing to some religious text, or use your own assertion that
there can't tell. 🙂 Using our minds alone will not do. It
has to be tangible evidence.
Any way through out this thread I didn't use any text. I didn't say my GOD is the creator. And only used my mind as you do. But you always direct the debate towards my GOD.
You are true mind alone cann't say, so GOD has to tell you himself. But because GOD didn't tell you directly and told someone else you don't belive him and you still want GOD to tell you.
But because he will not tell you directly and you will not accept that he told someone else you will wait fot the evidence, and stick to your mind which tell you that a chance created the world.
Very funny isn't it.
So you don't want to belive there is GOD , so you start to search for another explanation to our existance, except that there is GOD. What your mind came up with is there is no creator and we are created with the universe like that,by random, which aganist the mind. But you will accept it because there is no evidence that there is GOD , but there is evidence , OH those prophets. I don't know them, they must be liers because there is no GOD. There is holy books, but they are crap because there is no GOD. AS you can see your logic eats itself too.
Originally posted by ahosyney🙄 😵
Yes of course you will not accept my text, you will not accept prophets, you will not accept that, because it say there is GOD, but you still want me to give you an evidence.
Any way through out this thread I didn't use any text. I didn't say my GOD is the creator. And only used my mind as you do. But you always direct the debate towards my GOD.
You ...[text shortened]... s, but they are crap because there is no GOD. AS you can see your logic eats itself too.
Originally posted by ahosyneyHaving had a good nights sleep, I read this again and realise that I may
Yes of course you will not accept my text, you will not accept prophets, you will not accept that, because it say there is GOD, but you still want me to give you an evidence.
Any way through out this thread I didn't use any text. I didn't say my GOD is the creator. And only used my mind as you do. But you always direct the debate towards my GOD.
You ...[text shortened]... s, but they are crap because there is no GOD. AS you can see your logic eats itself too.
have offended you more than I meant to. You seem to rant like you're all
emotional. I could be wrong, but if I'm not I must apologise. So, I
apologise.
I'm not talking about your God or lack of a God per se. I'm trying to point
out that you and I couldn't possibly know if there is or isn't a God. If you
have the proof, please present it. But don't expect me to be anything but
critical. If it really is valid evidence, it will withstand the tear of my criticism.
Originally posted by ahosyneyYou are assuming that everyone agrees with you on certain assumptions and that all minds think alike. You say "..which against the mind" but it is only your mind which it is against not mine.
So you don't want to belive there is GOD , so you start to search for another explanation to our existance, except that there is GOD. What your mind came up with is there is no creator and we are created with the universe like that,by random, which aganist the mind. But you will accept it because there is no evidence that there is GOD , but there is evidenc ...[text shortened]... y books, but they are crap because there is no GOD. AS you can see your logic eats itself too.
You have made a number of assumptions throughout this thread and claimed that they are obvious but given no reasoning to support this claim. They include:
1. The universe has a beginning.
2. There must have been a creator.
3. The creator of the universe must be conscious.
4. The creator could not have been created.
5. The creator is omnipotent.
6. A creator must necessarily be bigger / better than the thing it creates.
None of the above have basis in logic or experience. We know nothing about creation as we have never experienced it within the universe other than the creation and anihilation of matter/antimatter going on all around us which is, we believe, a totally random process with no indications that there is an intelligent being behind it.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI agree with you up until the last sentence, I'm not sure the word 'random' is correct. The natural processes of physical particles is perhaps better described as ordered but uncontrolled, since they follow the laws of physics. Or, even if we do not know how those movements initiate, we would guess there are rules governing them?
You are assuming that everyone agrees with you on certain assumptions and that all minds think alike. You say "..which against the mind" but it is only your mind which it is against not mine.
You have made a number of assumptions throughout this thread and claimed that they are obvious but given no reasoning to support this claim. They include:
1. The u ...[text shortened]... ve, a totally random process with no indications that there is an intelligent being behind it.
Originally posted by StarrmanI did say 'random process'. The process bit implies certain rules. If you toss a coin then we say the result is random while at the same time accepting that its flight path was totally within the laws of physics.
I agree with you up until the last sentence, I'm not sure the word 'random' is correct. The natural processes of physical particles is perhaps better described as ordered but uncontrolled, since they follow the laws of physics. Or, even if we do not know how those movements initiate, we would guess there are rules governing them?
My point however was that many people claim that if something is created then it has to have a creator which is superior in some way to the thing being created. There are only two examples I know of, where things get created, one is the unconfirmed creation of the universe which we know nothing about, the other is the very frequent creation of particles throughout the universe. In the second instance I see no indication that there is an intelligent creator. So where is the claimed 'common sense' or 'obvious' assumption that the first has a creator coming from? I can only conclude that the claimants are trying to draw an analogy to to things which are created or rather assembled by humans. However such an analogy is too weak to draw such far reaching conclusions.