Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So our existence has simply always existed?
It's not a matter of it being offensive. I find the personal, all too human, monothesitic deity to be boringly human. It's silly.What, me calling It what I want offends you?
I know it's a bit off topic to point this out, but this is a false dichotomy. A third possibility is that the chemical reactions affect, but do not necessitate, actions or decisions. For instance, alcohol doesn't make[/] you dance on a barstool, but imbibing alcohol may have influenced your decision. To me, anyway, the third option seems to be the most likely.That is to say, either your mind is governed entirely by the deterministic/probabilistic chemical reactions in your brain, or it isn't and we actually do have free will.
It is not contrary to develop theories as to why and ascribe to the one we deem most likely.We are simply a consequence of the natural laws of the universe. Your question is of this sort, "what is it like to not exist?" How should one answer your question (or my analogous one)?
We are. Whatever the cause. One incredulity is not reason for proposing a thought merely to deal with the discomfort of know knowing.
We are simply a consequence of the natural laws of the universe. Your question is of this sort, "what is it like to not exist?" How should one answer your question (or my analogous one)?
We are. Whatever the cause. One incredulity is not reason for proposing a thought merely to deal with the discomfort of know knowing.
While this would make your argument more consistent, it begs the question for the existence of the supernatural
"Begs the question", when not used colloquially, means that the conclusion is presupposed in the premises. As soon as you say that "everything natural needs a cause", you exclude any naturalistic explanation. This would be akin to me arguing that "Everything must occur naturally, therefore god does not exist". It isn't a good argument.To cause the natural.
See.Maybe impossible to know for sure;
So what?but if God wanted us to be able to say with absolute certainty that He exists, wouldn't that eliminate any choice we have in the matter?
I know it's a bit off topic to point this out, but this is a false dichotomy. A third possibility is that the chemical reactions affect, but do not necessitate, actions or decisions. For instance, alcohol doesn't make[/] you dance on a barstool, but imbibing alcohol may have influenced your decision. To me, anyway, the third option seems to be the most likely.
"God," is merely a name; to continue past that would get into determining Its nature.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA hereafter) contains this premise: Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.Sound means the argument is true and valid.
What do you find not true or valid about the ways reached?
"Begs the question", when not used colloquially, means that the conclusion is presupposed in the premises. As soon as you say that "everything natural needs a cause", you exclude any naturalistic explanation.
Modern quantum theories permit uncaused events - and even require them in some iterations - which at the very least places an empirical onus on that premise where the argument's proponents would have us treat it as a matter of definition.
There is surely a more important matter to God than whether or not we believe he exists, yes?Maybe impossible to know for sure; but if God wanted us to be able to say with absolute certainty that He exists, wouldn't that eliminate any choice we have in the matter?
And, assuming we are both right in our suppositions, how is this less improbable than an anthropomorphic god?Well, in order for matter and energy to exist time must exist to order the reaction, space must exist to allow the reactions to happen, and the matter and energy must be "pushed" in some way to react with each other.
Maybe impossible to know for sure; but if God wanted us to be able to say with absolute certainty that He exists, wouldn't that eliminate any choice we have in the matter?
Well, my point stands that there still have to be something to move matter and energy, even if they were to everlasting.And, assuming we are both right in our suppositions, how is this less improbable than an anthropomorphic god?
So what can we know with "absolute certainty"?Oh great, take the unprovability of your religion and spin it into a positive.
Anyways the first rule of epistemology is that you can't know hardly anything with "absolute" certainty. What we'd like is a bit of evidence for your religion.
I am not at all familiar with quantum physics, so enlighten me.The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA hereafter) contains this premise: Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.
Modern quantum theories permit uncaused events - and even require them in some iterations - which at the very least places an empirical onus on that premise where the argument's proponents would have us treat it as a matter of definition.
So what can we know with "absolute certainty"?
And well, I presented an argument for the existence of God from logic. Would you like to go into the nature of God?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?