The universe had a beginning.

[Pray To Jesus]

I don't see how what you quoted contradicts my post. It's just much more 'wordy'.

(I'm feeling lazy these days and therefore deeply committed to brevity.)

Fern

???

 

[Fern]

You're just proving my point. What is the basis for this distinction? A unilateral declaration that god doesn't have to follow the rules.

A five year old can spot the problem with that.

Not trying to be argumentative here, but the problem the 5 yr old spotted was that God wouldn't be omnipotent if he had to abide by the rules.

In any case I'm much more interested in the assumptions I referred to above.

Fern

 

[Fern]

???

I think you're focusing on that author's phrase and particularly the use of the word "lonely: "And he didn't make us because he was lonely".

But note he later says "God chose to create us anyway, out of his great love: "I have loved you with an everlasting love"". I think companionship sums this up adequately.

Then there's: "God created us to fulfill his eternal plan" etc etc. Boredom and amusement are my code words for this instead of typing something lengthy.

Perhaps you think my condensed remarks inaccurate. But, hey, that's always a risk with brevity. Shrug.

Fern

 

[Retro Rob]

You're just proving my point. What is the basis for this distinction? A unilateral declaration that god doesn't have to follow the rules.

A five year old can spot the problem with that.

I would say that if God did create the physical universe, then he has to exists outside it.

Its impossible for someone to create something in which he is dependent upon for his own existence.

For instance, if God is dependent upon oxygen to exist, he cannot be the creator of oxygen. God not "playing by the rules" would be an absolute must ifwe are to accept that he created the rules.

 

[alzan]

What if God creates man and man creates God as they evolve together such that the level of a man's evolution determines the God he sees.

I'm guessing at that level he'd not see any God since he instinctively loves/thinks/acts as God would.

Then perhaps, in the (substituted) words of LunarRay he would be capable of seeing all that the mirror reflects.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

I think you're focusing on that author's phrase and particularly the use of the word "lonely: "And he didn't make us because he was lonely".

But note he later says "God chose to create us anyway, out of his great love: "I have loved you with an everlasting love"". I think companionship sums this up adequately.

Then there's: "God created us to fulfill his eternal plan" etc etc. Boredom and amusement are my code words for this instead of typing something lengthy.

Perhaps you think my condensed remarks inaccurate. But, hey, that's always a risk with brevity. Shrug.

Fern

If only words have distinct ideas attached to them, we wouldn't have to read each other's mind. :biggrin:


Here's a good analogy of what you did:


Sally loves apples and wanted apples. She bought some apples because she loves them. Therefore she was lonely and needed the companionship of apples. She plans to bring some apples with her to school. Therefore, she was bored and wanted amusement.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm guessing at that level he'd not see any God since he instinctively loves/thinks/acts as God would.

Then perhaps, in the (substituted) words of LunarRay he would be capable of seeing all that the mirror reflects.

I think you are definitely on to something.

 

[Onceler]

You, Onceler, need to prove that god exists in the first place. It's not our job to provide evidence to the contrary until you have done so first. Burden of proof and all that jazz.

No I do not. It is natural to believe in God or gods every culture has them since the beginning of humanity and they all came to those conclusions independently of each other so it must be natural. What you are doing is unnatural so the burden of proof is on you.

 

[Fern]

If only words have distinct ideas attached to them, we wouldn't have to read each other's mind. :biggrin:


Here's a good analogy of what you did:


Sally loves apples and wanted apples. She bought some apples because she loves them. Therefore she was lonely and needed the companionship of apples. She plans to bring some apples with her to school. Therefore, she was bored and wanted amusement.

No, I just would've said "sally was hungry".

Fern

 

[Fern]

I would say that if God did create the physical universe, then he has to exists outside it.

Its impossible for someone to create something in which he is dependent upon for his own existence.

For instance, if God is dependent upon oxygen to exist, he cannot be the creator of oxygen. God not "playing by the rules" would be an absolute must ifwe are to accept that he created the rules.

Re: Bolded - yeah, that's the assumption I was getting at. The assumption that God exists (only) in this universe (or more specifically this 'reality' or dimension).

I realize that we're getting into some pretty extraordinary territory here, but when discussing the possibility of a being who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent (and possibly some other "om's" I'm forgetting ATM) no notion is too extraordinary.

Some time ago I was doing some reading on quantum physics/mechanics. It seems at the subatomic level thing don't actually exist; they are not real. Imagine a flickering 3D projection, like a hologram. However from our perspective things are real, are solid.

Well, geez in googling 'hologram' to make sure I was using the term properly I found this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/11/universe-hologram-physicists_n_4428359.html

That's ^ what I was getting at.

A simple way to state it is that our reality is just a 'dream' of God. Our universe and us, were created in, and inhabit this dream. That's our reality. The point being that God would therefore (also) exist outside our reality. If so, contemplating his existence under the assumption that he exists only in our universe, or our version of reality, would be fallacious.

Fern

 

[MagickMan]

Then why the fuck did you click this thread.

*looks at the title of the thread*

You're a stupid shit, aren't you? :hmm:

 

[MagickMan]

What doesn't annoy but amuses me is when people who claim no interest in the topic pipe up to proclaim that disinterest as a form of superior perspective, implying the inferiority of others by insinuating they are annoying. It seems as if the egotistical self flatterers par possessed of a penchant
To butt in and announce the fattens of their heads even when they don't have a dog in the race.

I didn't claim to not have an interest in the topic, a person can be curious about the origins of the universe, and even the concept of divinity, without being on one side or another of a heated theological debate. Though, your statement isn't about that, it's about you taking a shot at me because you're obsessed. Get the fuck over it, if your own hyper-expanded ego will let you. :\

 

[MagickMan]

I just explained why he did. He had to tell you how superior he is.

The only person who constantly tries to tell everyone on this forum they're superior, is you. It'll surprise you to know this, I'm sure, but you aren't "God's" gift to AT. You never were, and you never will be.

 

[Vic]

God cannot be disproven, but that's not the way that rational argument works. Making fun of that kind of argument is what the Flying Spaghetti Monster is about.

If you take atheism to mean 'I am certain there is no god' then nobody can really be an atheist. That being said, when there is no evidence for god's existence and the arguments for the probability of such an existence so uncompelling, I would say that I am an atheist in the sense that I simply exist without theism.

Being agnostic does not mean that one is one the fence about God. What it means is that one does not believe in the supernatural or the spiritual. As atheism is to theism, agnosticism is to gnosticism.
To an agnostic, God may exist, but only in a rational manner and not in any way that most theists would accept as a belief in God (ie Spinozas god).

 

[Jaepheth]

Some would ask, how could a perfect God create a universe filled with so much that is evil?
They have missed a greater conundrum: why would a perfect God create a universe at all?

Sister Miriam Godwinson, "But for the Grace of God"

 

[Onceler]

Revelation(not that I believe the shrumhead) says:"for Your amusement were all things created.

 

[MagickMan]

Some would ask, how could a perfect God create a universe filled with so much that is evil?
They have missed a greater conundrum: why would a perfect God create a universe at all?

Sister Miriam Godwinson, "But for the Grace of God"

"If the creator and creation are the same, one could not be without the other. The conscious mind of God is then in all things that have thought and breath." - Goethe

 

[ThinClient]

*looks at the title of the thread*

You're a stupid shit, aren't you? :hmm:

Oh look, pointless personal insults when someone points out your own stupid mistake. Typical idiot's reaction. Can't make a counter point, so we'll just insult them! Weeeeeeee!

 

[fskimospy]

Not trying to be argumentative here, but the problem the 5 yr old spotted was that God wouldn't be omnipotent if he had to abide by the rules.

In any case I'm much more interested in the assumptions I referred to above.

Fern

No, my point is that you can't get around a problem by simply declaring it not so.

 

[ThinClient]

Re: Bolded - yeah, that's the assumption I was getting at. The assumption that God exists (only) in this universe (or more specifically this 'reality' or dimension).

I realize that we're getting into some pretty extraordinary territory here, but when discussing the possibility of a being who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent (and possibly some other "om's" I'm forgetting ATM) no notion is too extraordinary.

Some time ago I was doing some reading on quantum physics/mechanics. It seems at the subatomic level thing don't actually exist; they are not real. Imagine a flickering 3D projection, like a hologram. However from our perspective things are real, are solid.

Well, geez in googling 'hologram' to make sure I was using the term properly I found this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/11/universe-hologram-physicists_n_4428359.html

That's ^ what I was getting at.

A simple way to state it is that our reality is just a 'dream' of God. Our universe and us, were created in, and inhabit this dream. That's our reality. The point being that God would therefore (also) exist outside our reality. If so, contemplating his existence under the assumption that he exists only in our universe, or our version of reality, would be fallacious.

Fern

None of this philosophical word salad is grounded in reality. None of this has any evidence to support any sort of truth claim whatsoever. Why anyone would actually believe garbage like this is astounding.

 

[ThinClient]

Some would ask, how could a perfect God create a universe filled with so much that is evil?
They have missed a greater conundrum: why would a perfect God create a universe at all?

Sister Miriam Godwinson, "But for the Grace of God"

I think she missed the greatest conundrum of all: what evidence is there to support the positive claim that god exists in the first place?

 

[Onceler]

What evidence disproves Him?
And who said He has to play by the rules? God can and does alters the rules to whatever His desires are.

 

[ThinClient]

What evidence disproves Him?
And who said He has to play by the rules? God can and does alters the rules to whatever His desires are.

You're a fucking moron.

You can't disprove anything. You can't disprove that I exist. You can't disprove that I don't exist.

There's no evidence that proves that Santa doesn't exist.

We have typed this out hundreds of times and you are too fucking stupid to learn.

The burden of proof rests on the shoulders of those making the positive claim.

You claim that god exists. Before you make the claim, god doesn't exist because there's no one making the claim (let's say you're the first to make this claim). When you make the claim, it's up to YOU to prove that your claim is not bullshit. It is not up to us to prove to you that your claim is bullshit until AFTER you provide evidence. THEN it is our job to scrutinize your evidence to find holes. If we cannot, if the evidence is sound, then we accept the evidence and draw a conclusion from it (yay, god exists).

Until you provide evidence that god exists, then you're full of fucking shit and you need to close your ignorant fucking mouth because all you're doing is advertising to the entire world that you are a fucking moron.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

There's no evidence for God that TC can approve.

It's a good thing that a lot of people don't care about TC's approval.

 

[Moonbeam]

You're a fucking moron.

You can't disprove anything. You can't disprove that I exist. You can't disprove that I don't exist.

There's no evidence that proves that Santa doesn't exist.

We have typed this out hundreds of times and you are too fucking stupid to learn.

The burden of proof rests on the shoulders of those making the positive claim.

You claim that god exists. Before you make the claim, god doesn't exist because there's no one making the claim (let's say you're the first to make this claim). When you make the claim, it's up to YOU to prove that your claim is not bullshit. It is not up to us to prove to you that your claim is bullshit until AFTER you provide evidence. THEN it is our job to scrutinize your evidence to find holes. If we cannot, if the evidence is sound, then we accept the evidence and draw a conclusion from it (yay, god exists).

Until you provide evidence that god exists, then you're full of fucking shit and you need to close your ignorant fucking mouth because all you're doing is advertising to the entire world that you are a fucking moron.

I don't see why he should have to. All he is saying is that he knows who God is. He is saying that God can be anything He wants, which also means that he can have no idea who God is. So for a fact God can be a turtle and it's Turtles all the way down.

If God doesn't play by the rules there are no rules and reason and logic of any kind are meaningless as is his argument.