The universe with no need of God

[TagliatelliMonster]

It doesn't matter at all what you think. Because there is basis in reality. Its called the universe. God is seen in the creation he made.

How is a universe that wasn't created by a god different compared to a universe that is?

Just because one refused to see it doesn't make it any less true.

Nore does insisting that it's there, make it true.

This reality you live in is short, your reality is extremely limited and the fact that you only look at the limited short reality you live in is in itself limiting.

We have no other choice, then to limit ourselves to our "limits".

And in the end you will have no excuse when you stand before God.

Or not.

 

[HitchSlap]

The same holds true of GOD

On a scale of 0 - 100, with zero as "all doubt," and one hundred as "no doubt," where would you place yourself on that scale?

 

[HitchSlap]

The same holds true of GOD

On a scale of 0 - 100, with zero as "all doubt," and one hundred as "no doubt," where would you place yourself on that scale?

 

[HitchSlap]

It doesn't matter at all what you think. Because there is basis in reality. Its called the universe. God is seen in the creation he made. Just because one refused to see it doesn't make it any less true. This reality you live in is short, your reality is extremely limited and the fact that you only look at the limited short reality you live in is in itself limiting.

And in the end you will have no excuse when you stand before God.

This is an argument from incredulity, which is a fallacy.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It doesn't matter at all what you think. Because there is basis in reality. Its called the universe. God is seen in the creation he made.

I don't see this, and Christians have not successfully backed up this claim.

Just because one refused to see it doesn't make it any less true.

Just because one claims to see it doesn't make it any more true.

This reality you live in is short, your reality is extremely limited and the fact that you only look at the limited short reality you live in is in itself limiting.

Yes...and?

And in the end you will have no excuse when you stand before God.

Or have no excuse for having reasoned incorrectly when one lives one's limited life in a godless universe.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Your argument breaks down at this errant statement with regard to a Being that does not inhabit space-time, and is not subject to causality (as you noted about pre-T-0), therefore whatever properties God has He has always had, and to say that they were assigned is absurd.

Do you realize you quoted,

3. God was not assigned these properties by someone else.

So you say it's absurd to argue that God's properties were assigned and you take grievance with the above. Didn't you read it?

 

[food4thought]

Do you realize you quoted,

3. God was not assigned these properties by someone else.

So you say it's absurd to argue that God's properties were assigned and you take grievance with the above. Didn't you read it?

Yeah, I was tired and got sloppy in my copy and paste, sorry. I quoted it because it does not matter whether one says God assigned them to Himself or that another assigned them... in the absence of time both propositions are meaningless. God is what He is and always has been what He is. In the absence of time, all things are experienced as an eternal now, there is no before or after, no cause and effect. From God's perspective, He creates the world at the very same "time" as He destroys it at the very same "time" as He creates a new heavens and new earth. All is eternal NOW to Him who inhabits eternity.

 

[rjs330]

How is a universe that wasn't created by a god different compared to a universe that is?



Nore does insisting that it's there, make it true.




We have no other choice, then to limit ourselves to our "limits".



Or not.

The universe wouldn't exist at all.

You are self imposing limitations.

 

[rjs330]

This is an argument from incredulity, which is a fallacy.

Doesn't matter.

 

[HitchSlap]

Doesn't matter.

LOL... Of course it matters.

I mean, wouldn't you like your beliefs to reflect reality? Using fallacious arguments won't get you there.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Yeah, I was tired and got sloppy in my copy and paste, sorry. I quoted it because it does not matter whether one says God assigned them to Himself or that another assigned them... in the absence of time both propositions are meaningless. God is what He is and always has been what He is. In the absence of time, all things are experienced as an eternal now, there is no before or after, no cause and effect. From God's perspective, He creates the world at the very same "time" as He destroys it at the very same "time" as He creates a new heavens and new earth. All is eternal NOW to Him who inhabits eternity.

If God's properties are not intelligently assigned, then they are random. Exactly what part of that do you dispute? Do you mean that because his properties were never assigned at all, it follows that his properties were not randomly assigned and thus are not random?

If God's properties are neither random nor intelligently assigned, what are they? Are you actually answering the question by saying they just are?

How can he exist for no reason and with no cause and have these (nonrandom?) properties if you say that the exact same thing cannot be true of the universe? X can be true of Z but X cannot be true of Y? Why?

 

[rjs330]

LOL... Of course it matters.

I mean, wouldn't you like your beliefs to reflect reality? Using fallacious arguments won't get you there.

But they do reflect reality. You just refuse to accept it.

 

[rjs330]

If God's properties are not intelligently assigned, then they are random. Exactly what part of that do you dispute? Do you mean that because his properties were never assigned at all, it follows that his properties were not randomly assigned and thus are not random?

If God's properties are neither random nor intelligently assigned, what are they? Are you actually answering the question by saying they just are?

How can he exist for no reason and with no cause and have these (nonrandom?) properties if you say that the exact same thing cannot be true of the universe? X can be true of Z but X cannot be true of Y? Why?

God always was. He said I am that I am. He is what he is. God created the universe and assigned properties to his creation. Who God is is beyond your comprehension. He shares with us who he is in the scriptures according to our limited ability to grasp him. But our finite understanding cannot fully comprehend an infinite being.

 

[HitchSlap]

But they do reflect reality. You just refuse to accept it.

It's easiest to fool ourselves.

 

[rjs330]

It's easiest to fool ourselves.

A fool in his heart says there is no God.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

God always was. He said I am that I am. He is what he is. God created the universe and assigned properties to his creation. Who God is is beyond your comprehension. He shares with us who he is in the scriptures according to our limited ability to grasp him. But our finite understanding cannot fully comprehend an infinite being.

"The universe was created by a being beyond comprehension who 'just is'" does not explain anything. Your worldview not only fails to provide better explanatory power than what is proposed by atheists, but you also assert the existence of an entity for which there is no evidence and whose existence does not clarify the problem one bit.

Instead of solving the problem, you allow the problem to persist and you add in a ridiculous claim. Your worldview is less viable than mine.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The universe wouldn't exist at all.

How do you know?

You are self imposing limitations.

No. I can't go beyond my limits. That's kind of what "limits" are all about......
My eyes for example, only can see within a specific spectrum.

I can't "see" ultra-violet.
I can't "see" magnetic fields.
I can't "see" radiation.

This is why we build tools. To be able to observe things that our senses aren't capable of.

Doesn't matter.

It matters, if you care about being rationally justified in your beliefs. If you care about believing as much accurate things as possible and the least false things as possible.

If you don't care about that, and just wish to hold on to your beliefs because you like them (or something of the sort), then sure... then arguing from a fallacious irrational position, doesn't matter.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But they do reflect reality. You just refuse to accept it.

If the only way you can "show" that they reflect reality, is by engaging in fallacious argumentation, then they do not reflect reality.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"The universe was created by a being beyond comprehension who 'just is'" does not explain anything. Your worldview not only fails to provide better explanatory power than what is proposed by atheists, but you also assert the existence of an entity for which there is no evidence and whose existence does not clarify the problem one bit.

Instead of solving the problem, you allow the problem to persist and you add in a ridiculous claim. Your worldview is less viable than mine.

Exactly. You can't explain the unexplained with the inexplicable.

 

[HitchSlap]

A fool in his heart says there is no God.

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be rejected without evidence.