What caused the Universe?

[HitchSlap]

That's why you're a mission field.

It's also why nobody has a sincere conversation with you.

 

[HitchSlap]

Then what's the problem with me doing it?

Can't I ... ahem ... ape His style?

Do what you want. But annoying rhetoric is never productive.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's also why nobody has a sincere conversation with you.

Because they end up being convicted?

Because they know that, sooner or later, they are going to get the word of God?

 

[quatona]

Then what's the problem with me doing it?

Well, you regularly bend out of shape when others do it to you. So I guess you know exactly what the problem is.

Can't I ... ahem ... ape His style?

Yes, obviously you can ape around to your heart's desire.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do what you want. But annoying rhetoric is never productive.

Well it's not sugar-coated rhetoric, that's for sure.

If it didn't annoy you, then something's wrong somewhere.

I don't know how many times my pastor has said, "If this message didn't bother you, you'd better check where you stand with the LORD!"

 

[HitchSlap]

Because they end up being convicted?

Because they know that, sooner or later, they are going to get the word of God?

Lol.

 

[HitchSlap]

Well it's not sugar-coated rhetoric, that's for sure.

If it didn't annoy you, then something's wrong somewhere.

I don't know how many times my pastor has said, "If this message didn't bother you, you'd better check where you stand with the LORD!"

Just can't help yourself, can you. Just don't feign dismay when you think someone won't answer "honestly."

Lol

 

[quatona]

Well it's not sugar-coated rhetoric, that's for sure.

indeed, it´s empty and not even sugar coated. No substance, no content and not even anything around appealing it.

If it didn't annoy you, then something's wrong somewhere.

So you admit you are purposefully, intentionally and deliberately annoying? OK.

I don't know how many times my pastor has said, "If this message didn't bother you, you'd better check where you stand with the LORD!"

He spoke about a bothering message. Not about annoying empty rhethoric.

 

[doubtingmerle]

In view of the idea that the goal of 'actual experts' is to sterilize every jot & tittle of the Bible, I have a feeling you're in for some more bafflement.

Why would anyone want a sterile tittle?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Chriliman, you came into this in the middle, so let's back up and look at the conversation that led to this. Some have been arguing that it would be logically impossible for the laws and forces of nature--call it nature's god--to create anything, but it would be logically possible for God to do it. That is a bogus argument. It is special pleading to say the argument applies only if you capitalize the g. If it is logically possible for your God to do it, then it is logically possible for Hawking's god to do it.

If the true God is the only being in existence capable of creating matter where there was none before then there can't be another god who is capable of the same. Agreed?

That is a tautology.

If the true Thor is the only being in existence capable of creating matter where there was none before, then there can't be another god who is capable of the same. Agreed?

See? Two can play that game.

It comes down to the true God, creating matter for a specific purpose which is to create beings who can understand His power and freely desire to be with Him forever because of what He has done to save them from the power of sin and death, resulting in true everlasting love -or- your god who created matter for some reason that is yet be known...or maybe you do know why your god has created matter.

You like your God's reason for doing it. Therefore your God did it? I don't think that is a valid argument.

You're expecting human scientific minds to reveal what is true about origins

Scientists have done an amazing job so far, so yes, I expect them to reveal more about origins.

But no, I don't expect them to ever understand origins fully.

 

[doubtingmerle]

the hypothesis
-is-
God created the universe to test our free will

Have any evidence for your hypothesis?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I don't use science.

Sorry to hear that.

 

[Radrook]

How can you conclude something you don't understand, doesn't exist?

You can't see the wind, yet we know it exists, and to that you will say: "We can feel the wind and see it's affects"...well, there ya' go then. And to add to that, just the fact we have a body at all to let us understand the wind, speaks volumes, but some just can't see the forest for the trees...or don't want too.

Believe what you like, as will I. I just think it's funny how you object to what I believe, makes no sense except that you know it's true but have to constantly try to convince others it is not, in order to justify your own beliefs.

Or maybe you can explain why what I believe is a concern to you?

Do you notice how it doesn't bother them one iota that they cannot really prove that the data provided by their senses is really representative of what lies what appears to be outside or that their minds? Yet they are very vehement when comes to anything concerning a creator? That is a major inconsistency.

 

[Radrook]

Have any evidence for your hypothesis?

Nothing that he might present you with will be accepted as evidence. That is called invincible ignorance.

 

[Radrook]

How can you not see the overwhelming intelligence it took to make God and all his attributes happen?

And if you say God always existed, then why can it not be that the natural creative forces and laws of nature always existed and drove the creation of one or more universes?

Because natural forces don't have a mind and the universe displays the activity of a mind.
You are in denial. But denial will not make it go away.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Do you notice how it doesn't bother them one iota that they cannot really prove that the data provided by their senses is really representative of what lies what appears to be outside or that their minds? Yet they are very vehement when comes to anything concerning a creator? That is a major inconsistency.

You are right, and I'm beginning to see that among other things. It seems the more they argue their point, the less valid it becomes, while validating creation.

I know they don't like common sense, but if they even had some decent common sense reason not to believe, I might at least understand their side, but there is nothing but nothing.

 

[HitchSlap]

You are right, and I'm beginning to see that among other things. It seems the more they argue their point, the less valid it becomes, while validating creation.

I know they don't like common sense, but if they even had some decent common sense reason not to believe, I might at least understand their side, but there is nothing but nothing.

Creationism is a lost cause. It's a dead-end proposition, with nowhere to go but dumb.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Nothing that he might present you with will be accepted as evidence. That is called invincible ignorance.

Resorting to ad hominems, huh?

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Do you have any reason for believing Victorinus's argument that don't involve resorting to logical fallacies?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Because natural forces don't have a mind and the universe displays the activity of a mind.

That is very different argument from the Kalam argument that has prevailed on this thread. So folks are now starting to realize there is no logical necessity that the universe had to be created by God? They turn now to arguing from complexity?

If everything complex requires a mind to create it, then your God requires a mind to create him. But if you say your God always existed, then I say that the basic creative forces and laws behind the universe always existed.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Creationism is a lost cause. It's a dead-end proposition, with nowhere to go but dumb.