At a point where you talk about creating universes from nothing, reason isn´t an applicable tool anymore. One wild guess is as good as any other.
Upvote
0
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.
At a point where you talk about creating universes from nothing, reason isn´t an applicable tool anymore. One wild guess is as good as any other.So you're not interested in having a serious discussion.
Very well, any other takers? Why is the idea of an inanimate and unintelligent "thing" creating the universe more reasonable than a Creator God?
To know there is no God one would have to know and experience all things
So you're not interested in having a serious discussion.
Very well, any other takers? Why is the idea of an inanimate and unintelligent "thing" creating the universe more reasonable than a Creator God?
False. Substitute "square circle" for god(s) and you'll see why.
Also, this argument applies equally to knowing that there's just one god. After all, unless you've been everywhere in the universe at once you can't know for sure that there aren't multiple gods. Guess Christianity goes out the window, at least if you apply this standard consistently.
Why do people feel the need to change the standards of evidence just to fit a god in? Special pleading just makes their claims look weaker than they already are.
Incorrect. You are confusing coherency with believability.False. Substitute "square circle" for god(s) and you'll see why.
Because people created God to explain nature when they didn't understand it, and then later to give them hope when there was none. Now that we have come to understand nature more, like Neil Tyson said, "God is just a pocket of receding scientific ignorance". I think it's more reasonable that there is something we have yet to uncover about nature, and when we discover it, it will be extremely profound. I mentioned this in another thread "What does 2+2=4 mean?, but I take the side that the universe is a purely mathematical structure (MUH). And if that is somehow proven to be the case, I think our knowledge will dead end when we "can't know" what the physical mechanism is that makes it manifest itself as reality. But at least at that point we'll know our knowledge didn't terminate at some type of intelligent being.
At least we have evidence that inanimate and unintelligent things exist. Can't say the same for god(s). That makes the latter less reasonable.
Will you be able to meet this with an example of your "Creator God" creating something like a car or an airplane?Show me an example of an inanimate and unintelligent thing creating something like a car or airplane, for example.
Intelligence is also complex and doesn't just come from nowhere. If the complexity of the universe somehow points to an intelligent designer, then what does the complexity of intelligence point to? Another designer?Why is it more reasonable that an inanimate, unintelligent "thing" created the universe as opposed to an intelligent Creator God? In point of fact, you have to show that an inanimate, unintelligent "thing" could somehow give birth to a universe as complex as ours and one that has creatures with intelligence in it.
Given the paucity of evidence for an intelligent designer, I don't think that's true.In other words, you have a much longer way to go than anyone who believes in a Creator God.
Show me an example of something like a car or an airplane coming to existence without needing to be built, and then I'll believe that God could have always existed without needing to be created first himself.Show me an example of an inanimate and unintelligent thing creating something like a car or airplane, for example.
Incorrect. You are confusing coherency with believability.
We know that a square circle is impossible because it is an incoherent concept. Not so with God. The concept of the Christian god is totally coherent.
My lack of belief is caused by the incoherence of the concept, not the other way around.You may not believe he exists, but that does not mean he's incoherent.
Show me an example of an inanimate and unintelligent thing creating something like a car or airplane, for example.
A doctrine that has been defined by the church up and down, from side to side, in almost redundant detail, can indeed by called "coherent," yes.Yeah, the Trinity is a totally coherent concept. There's never any church which calls it a mystery since it is so logically coherent and simple to explain.
Come on, be serious.
We usually just say that that's a lack of understanding on your part. Other people do understand, you know.My lack of belief is caused by the incoherence of the concept, not the other way around.
It's coherently polytheistic.A doctrine that has been defined by the church up and down, from side to side, in almost redundant detail, can indeed by called "coherent," yes.
They pretend to, yes.We usually just say that that's a lack of understanding on your part. Other people do understand, you know.
Oh no. Of all the criticisms that could be leveled at the doctrine of the Trinity, the idea that it's polytheistic shows just about the least comprehension of the belief and/or all the documents, statements, etc. that the church has produced.It's coherently polytheistic.
Oh no, should I be concerned? Do I need to study fashion in Milan before I may critique the emperor's new clothes?Oh no. Of all the criticisms that could be leveled at the doctrine of the Trinity, the idea that it's polytheistic shows just about the least comprehension of the belief and/or all the documents, statements, etc. that the church has produced.
I was asking whether I should be concerned that I apparently lack the sophisticated fashion sense required to truly appreciate the emperor's stunning new garments.You're the one who volunteered that claim, so I'd say that doing that shows some level of concern. I merely replied to it.
Will you be able to meet this with an example of your "Creator God" creating something like a car or an airplane?
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?