Originally posted by vishvahetu So are you like the atheistic scientist who says with their defective mind, that all of creation including thinking feeling people, have come about by a miraculous accident?....is that your defective logic? and will you teach your children this.
For the time being there is neither scientific finds nor scientific evidence that backs up your so called "creation" the way you conceive it -I mean, the way it is conceived by Suta Goswami, whose religious beliefs you accept blindly. And I never said that the observer universe came into existence out of a miraculous accident; I said that my knowledge herenow forces me to accept that the observer universe came into existence out of the point singularity.
Now, prey tell, how exactly and by which means you established in person the existence of the observer you name "creator"?
😵
Interesting 'hole in a sieve' answers by two of the same.
Pre-existing laws? Oh! So you haven't developed your own character and judgement yet? We develop and take life further daily, most of us, as that is how laws and jurisdiction develops. You must be under 13 years old, and not be permitted to be a member of this site, or you are blind to truthful words which threaten all that you know, with closed eyes. If you want to continue living in pre-historical times of development, Amen.
For VishaVeg; I have taught my children the freedom of goodwill, and choice. I will teach them of all religions and philosophies. Their choice is their own, not mine. I am sure yours need to read a bible every night, to satisfy your own fears. May your Lord God on Mount High Bless You for indoctrinating them.
Originally posted by black beetle Since you cannot establish the so called creator as an epistemic object, your hypothesis regarding the existence of this creator is not based on facts and thus it does not hold as a solid theory of reality. So I assume you beleive blindly in the existence of this creator of yours and I urge you to honour your spiritual teachers -however kindly please keep in mind that your hypothesis is not entering any "next level"
😵
epistemic
–adjective
of or pertaining to knowledge or the conditions for acquiring it.
"Since you cannot establish the so called creator as an epistemic object, your hypothesis regarding the existence of this creator is not based on facts and thus it does not hold as a solid theory of reality."
It's not a hypothesis. The existence of the universe IS the evidence for a creator.
NO ONE in this forum seems to want to address this assertion though I have repeated it many times.
Do you deny the existence of the universe?
There arrogance of a mind that seeks to define a universe based on ones' own epistemic criteria. 🙁
Originally posted by josephw epistemic
–adjective
of or pertaining to knowledge or the conditions for acquiring it.
[b]"Since you cannot establish the so called creator as an epistemic object, your hypothesis regarding the existence of this creator is not based on facts and thus it does not hold as a solid theory of reality."
It's not a hypothesis. The existence of the u ...[text shortened]... rrogance of a mind that seeks to define a universe based on ones' own epistemic criteria. 🙁[/b]
The existence of the universe IS the evidence for a creator.
The problem with the teleological argument is that you are then obliged to apply the same principles to the supposed creator. I've seen this issue addressed again and again in this forum, but you seem reluctant to accept the responses.
The existence of the universe is evidence only for the existence of the universe, it provides no logical basis for the existence of supernatural entities.
Originally posted by avalanchethecat [b]The existence of the universe IS the evidence for a creator.
The problem with the teleological argument is that you are then obliged to apply the same principles to the supposed creator. I've seen this issue addressed again and again in this forum, but you seem reluctant to accept the responses.
The existence of the universe is evidence ...[text shortened]... tence of the universe, it provides no logical basis for the existence of supernatural entities.[/b]
Don't worry about it. I'm sure he lives with his own 'holy ghost'. 😉
Originally posted by josephw epistemic
–adjective
of or pertaining to knowledge or the conditions for acquiring it.
[b]"Since you cannot establish the so called creator as an epistemic object, your hypothesis regarding the existence of this creator is not based on facts and thus it does not hold as a solid theory of reality."
It's not a hypothesis. The existence of the u ...[text shortened]... rrogance of a mind that seeks to define a universe based on ones' own epistemic criteria. 🙁[/b]
I believe the universe was created as a result of an accident in a scientific experiment by an alien race in another dimension.
The universe exists, so therefore i must be correct!!!!
Wait.............
I believe the universe was created as a result of a quantum fluctuation in the collective unconcious.
The universe exists, so therefore i must be correct!!!
Originally posted by Proper Knob I believe the universe was created as a result of an accident in a scientific experiment by an alien race in another dimension.
The universe exists, so therefore i must be correct!!!!
Wait.............
I believe the universe was created as a result of a quantum fluctuation in the collective unconcious.
The universe exists, so therefore i must be correct!!!
When you look away from a mirror, you don't exist. Quark and The Jaguar. 😉
Originally posted by black beetle For the time being there is neither scientific finds nor scientific evidence that backs up your so called "creation" the way you conceive it -I mean, the way it is conceived by Suta Goswami, whose religious beliefs you accept blindly. And I never said that the observer universe came into existence out of a miraculous accident; I said that my knowledge h ...[text shortened]... which means you established in person the existence of the observer you name "creator"?
😵
Why dont you speak common english!........the point singularity.
Buddhist talk all manner of gibberish, to fool the gullible, but I am one who can see through your dislay of word jugglery,
And the fact is, you believe that all that exists came about by a miraculous accident, and you try to use big words to make it sound intelligent, but its not intelligent the least, ...its fraud.
Originally posted by mikelom Interesting 'hole in a sieve' answers by two of the same.
Pre-existing laws? Oh! So you haven't developed your own character and judgement yet? We develop and take life further daily, most of us, as that is how laws and jurisdiction develops. You must be under 13 years old, and not be permitted to be a member of this site, or you are blind to truthful wo ...[text shortened]... to satisfy your own fears. May your Lord God on Mount High Bless You for indoctrinating them.
I dont accept the Bible, so what are you talking about.
You teach your children they are accidents...that is child abuse.
Originally posted by vishvahetu Why dont you speak common english!........the point singularity.
Buddhist talk all manner of gibberish, to fool the gullible, but I am one who can see through your dislay of word jugglery,
And the fact is, you believe that all that exists came about by a miraculous accident, and you try to use big words to make it sound intelligent, but its not intelligent the least, ...its fraud.
Originally posted by mikelom And where did I say I teach my children they are accidents? Quote real stuff please. 🙂
Atheism is a belief that the creator God is not a reality, so everything existing must have come about by chance or an accident, because universes and people, dont create themselves.
Originally posted by vishvahetu Atheism is a belief that the creator God is not a reality, so everything existing must have come about by chance or an accident, because universes and people, dont create themselves.
Originally posted by vishvahetu Why dont you speak common english!........the point singularity.
Buddhist talk all manner of gibberish, to fool the gullible, but I am one who can see through your dislay of word jugglery,
And the fact is, you believe that all that exists came about by a miraculous accident, and you try to use big words to make it sound intelligent, but its not intelligent the least, ...its fraud.
In Math, singularity is the value or range of values of a function for which a derivative does not exist; in Physics, singularity is a point or region in spacetime in which gravitational forces cause matter to have an infinite density; and in my post to you I was talking about the gravitational singularity that predicted the point of the infinite spacetime curvature of the observer universe about 13,7 billion years ago, when the observer universe was compressed into the confines of an atomic nucleus. For the time being I accept this singularity as the condition before the manifestation of the observer universe, and in that condition spacetime was not existent (t=0) because the density of the universe and the spacetime curvature are, according to the basic Big Bang model, infinite. Hopefully you could see in some kalpas I don't believe that "all that exists came about by a miraculous accident"; you could also understand that I told you unable I remain for the time being to pass the veil known as "point singularity".
Now, prey tell, how exactly and by which means you established in person the existence of the observer you name "creator"?
😵
Originally posted by josephw epistemic
–adjective
of or pertaining to knowledge or the conditions for acquiring it.
[b]"Since you cannot establish the so called creator as an epistemic object, your hypothesis regarding the existence of this creator is not based on facts and thus it does not hold as a solid theory of reality."
It's not a hypothesis. The existence of the u ...[text shortened]... rrogance of a mind that seeks to define a universe based on ones' own epistemic criteria. 🙁[/b]
Edit: "The existence of the universe IS the evidence for a creator."
I join hands with avalanchethecat, who answered first your question
😵
Kalama Sutta
13 Nov '10 12:02
Back to Top