1 edit
Whodey... so you've opened up an interesting line of discussion. There is a theory that if you eat the brains of a monkey, you will gain special knowledge or intelligence.
So if we eat fried chicken, or eggs, or extra mayonnaise on our sandwiches... do you think we stand to receive special divine revelation?
Originally posted by josephwWell I certainly did not mean to discourage you.
Not offended. Discouraged.
One thing I have expereinced is that when we take forums a little too seriously, which we all have at times, discouragement is right around the corner.
Just a little advice Joeseph.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by josephwThere is no evidence for one.
This is a test to see if any can stay on topic, and to see who can use objective reason and logic without resorting to innuendo, insults, personal attacks and other emotionally driven invectives. No resolution to the topic is required. Just sincere, honest and respectful debate. Off topic replies will be considered as an admission of defeat.
Good luck! He ...[text shortened]... e for, and the creator of all that exists, whether it be visible or invisible, know or unknown?
But no way to rule out the possibility.
However the only creator of any relevance is one that actively cares about us and intervenes
either by taking those who die to some sort of afterlife or by actively interfering with the world
we live in.
As there is no evidence of such a creator, and no explanatory value of postulating one, then
my answer, until such evidence is presented otherwise, is no...
No such being exists.
I am not 100% certain of this, but I see no reason to be solipsistic... [I may have just invented
that word but it works for me]
2 edits
Originally posted by josephwNormally the putative creator is considered to have created all but itself, because self-creation seems irrational or incoherent. So by this logic, there would not be a creator of "all that exists," or at least, the idea that it exists or existed when it did its creating work, conflicts with the idea that reason and logic can be applied to the subject. This might seem to be a nit, but there are different issues raised depending on the creator's "back story."
This is a test to see if any can stay on topic, and to see who can use objective reason and logic without resorting to innuendo, insults, personal attacks and other emotionally driven invectives. No resolution to the topic is required. Just sincere, honest and respectful debate. Off topic replies will be considered as an admission of defeat.
Good luck! He e for, and the creator of all that exists, whether it be visible or invisible, know or unknown?
Also, the idea that this creator is responsible for all that exists might fly in the face of issues down the road, such as free will and moral responsibility of any creatures.
I would also want to know if anything else will be stipulated or is assumed to be true about this creator; which might strain reason and logic. We had a discussion of "G," the universe-generator a little time ago, that sort of fizzled out before anything was done to reach agreement that G could be justifiably said to stand for "God." Now we have C as creation-generator.The word "creator" seems to imply agency as that word is used in philosophy, which is more than "cause." But that discussion was relatively free of invective, at least in its later stages.
Do I get a kewpie doll?
Originally posted by googlefudgeThanks google. I appreciate your reply.
There is no evidence for one.
But no way to rule out the possibility.
However the only creator of any relevance is one that actively cares about us and intervenes
either by taking those who die to some sort of afterlife or by actively interfering with the world
we live in.
As there is no evidence of such a creator, and no explanatory value of ...[text shortened]... I see no reason to be solipsistic... [I may have just invented
that word but it works for me]
Now here's my rebuttal.
Your expectation of the being that created all things, assuming there is one, to respond to creation as you expect it to presupposes superiority.
If such a being exists it is you that should be learning how to respond to it. Not the other way around. See my point?
Solipsistic - You can only prove you exist.
But oddly enough, your existence is proof of a creator. You'll have to think that one through.