Test Thread

Originally posted by josephw
Thanks google. I appreciate your reply.

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 c ...[text shortened]... But oddly enough, your existence is proof of a creator. You'll have to think that one through.

I get this when I think applying reason and logic to what you say is a proof:

Proposition 1. I exist.
Proposition 2 through n. (These are yet to be stated.)
Conclusion: Therefore, a creator exists.

Is this what you have in mind for this thread?

Originally posted by JS357
Normally 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 mi ...[text shortened]... tively free of invective, at least in its later stages.

Do I get a kewpie doll?

"Do I get a kewpie doll?"

Not for if, ands, or buts. Break it down. You seem swamped in minutia. If there was a being that created all that exists, that being can logically be said to be self existing, lacking nothing, without flaw, because "all that exists" means there is nothing else in existence that wasn't created. Therefore, a creator, if one exists, is self contained, complete, whole and absolute.

Originally posted by JS357
I get this when I think applying reason and logic to what you say is a proof:

Proposition 1. I exist.
Proposition 2 through n. (These are yet to be stated.)
Conclusion: Therefore, a creator exists.

Is this what you have in mind for this thread?

"Is this what you have in mind for this thread?"

It really doesn't matter. What I wanted in a thread was a debate. A real debate. Read the OP. As long as we don't get snide and stupid with each other it doesn't matter. We don't have to agree. We just have to debate. When we debate we grow. When we throw stones we all we get are materials for walls.

Originally posted by whodey
In my opinion, Dasa is merely a highly intelligent primate of some kind who managed to have access to a computer. That is why he is such an ardent advocate of animal rights as well as trying to convert us all to being vegetarians.

It's kinda like that advertisement where cows are trying to advertise to people to eat chickens so they will leave them alone and eat chickens instead.

Is Dasa the chicken?

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"Do I get a kewpie doll?"

Not for if, ands, or buts. Break it down. You seem swamped in minutia. If there was a being that created all that exists, that being can logically be said to be self existing, lacking nothing, without flaw, because "all that exists" means there is nothing else in existence that wasn't created. Therefore, a creator, if one exists, is self contained, complete, whole and absolute.[/b]

The devil is in the minutia, as far as I am concerned, so I will drop out of this thread.

Is there a being, an entity, a person or an individual who is responsible for, and the creator of all that exists, whether it be visible or invisible, know or unknown?


I say Yes. Just shear probability alone is what convinces me. Very basic how can and did the whole of this universe come out of nothing? I believe this being can and wants to be known. lastly a day will come when we will meet this being face to face. 🙂


Manny

Ah. Manny presents the Occam's Razor argument.

Me likey.

Originally posted by sumydid
Ah. Manny presents the Occam's Razor argument.

Me likey.

I need to get familiar with this Occam's Razor argument. I see it mentioned a lot but I honestly don't know it.

I know Hawkings argument was because all started at the beginning the "Big Bang" if you will and this includes time itself that there was not enough time before the beginning for a creator because there was no time at all. However if this being is outside of time or the creator of time then this argument is void.

Manny

Originally posted by menace71
Is there a being, an entity, a person or an individual who is responsible for, and the creator of all that exists, whether it be visible or invisible, know or unknown?


I say Yes. Just shear probability alone is what convinces me. Very basic how can and did the whole of this universe come out of nothing? I believe this being can and wants to be known. lastly a day will come when we will meet this being face to face. 🙂


Manny

He will be coming in the clouds and every eye shall see Him. Yea, Lord,
come quickly. Halleluyah !!!

Originally posted by RJHinds
He will be coming in the clouds and every eye shall see Him. Yea, Lord,
come quickly. Halleluyah !!!

Amen come quickly Lord come quickly



Manny

Originally posted by sumydid
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?

Mayonnaise has an IQ of 3 so maybe if you eat extra mayonnaise you can gain its intelligence through osmosis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor




Manny

http://creation.com/occams-razor-and-creation-evolution

Originally posted by josephw
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?

My response would be no - no such being exists.

A lot of people seem to be happy with the argument that, the universe exists therefore it must have come into existence at some time. Since it must have come into existence, and we don't know of any natural process that could create a universe, then there must exist some being who could, and did, create it.

This rests on some assumptions and misses some - what seem to me anyway - to be some obvious points:

. Assumption - the universe came into existence. This may be the case, but need not. It may be that the universe has always existed. Admittedly this isn't a very 'nice' perspective in that it leaves us with an open-ended problem, but nonetheless the possibility remains that the universe was never created.

. Assumption - we don't know of any natural processes that could create the universe. That's true, but there are many things we didn't know in the past, but do now. It is possible that we will discover a mechanism to create a universe from nothing in the future. How could this be? I don't know, but it seems as likely a possibility to me as that a supernatural being created the universe.

Finally, many seem to resort to the position (and you've done this yourself JW) that the existence of the beauty and wonder around us is, in and of itself, proof of the existence of a supernatural creator.
That may be compelling to someone who already believes in a supernatural creator, but appears as an astonishingly irrational perspective to someone who doesn't.

Originally posted by sumydid
http://creation.com/occams-razor-and-creation-evolution

I likey Occam's razor too.