Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-03-2016, 05:04 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Alright...the grand finale, before I leave you to your absurdities...

(06-03-2016 02:23 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Which is my point. You then turn around and say that, not only have you been sitting in the chair for eternity (which requires the existence of time), but that you are then capable of standing, which somehow creates time.

Apparently, you don't know that the word "eternity" does not always necessarily mean "in time". It can also mean "outside of time" / (timeless)

.http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eternity/

"Eternity as timelessness, and eternity as everlastingness, have been distinguished".

Educate yourself, sir.

Not only that, but in the scenario, time doesn't exist because there were no moments prior (past) or no moments after (future)....if there are no moments prior or after, there can be no moments during (present)...there can be no time if there isn't a past, present, or future in existence.

(06-03-2016 02:23 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Your premises are contradictory, your argument is incoherent, and you do not understand what time is.

Educate yourself on the philosophical definition of "eternity", and then perhaps somewhere in the DISTANT future we can have a meaningful discussion of these subjects.

Until then, I will leave you to your ignorance, and your absurdities.

(06-03-2016 02:23 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Quite. And yet you seem incapable of actually addressing it.

Thankfully, this is my last time responding to such foolishness.

(06-03-2016 02:23 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  That is not what "ex nihilo" means, unless you are implying that the matter that the horse is made out of itself only came into existence at that time.

Um, ex nihilo means "out of nothing", sir, and in the scenario the horse popped into your living room ex nihilo (out of nothing). If you think that such a scenario doesn't make sense, then you don't think that your own scenario involving a whole entire damn universe popping out of nothing makes sense.

"It is ok for a whole universe to pop in to being out of nothing, but when it comes to a horse, ohhh, that is completely absurd!!!"

Bullshit.

(06-03-2016 02:23 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Which does not happen. That's rather the entire point. It doesn't happen within space-time, so any claim that it follows the same rules as ex materia is bare assertion.

It does happen within space-time, sir. It is called the space-time continuum. You can't have matter with no space, because where would you put it? You can't have space and matter with no time, because when would you put it?

All space, time, energy, and matter (STEM) had to have came into existence simultaneously. You can't have one without the other. Even if a horse popped into being right now in my living room, there would need to be the "material" that it is made up of, space for it to occupy, and a time at which it appeared.

Educate yourself, sir.

(06-03-2016 02:23 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Precisely backwards. This is not the "price" of anything. It is the reality that leads to the conclusion of atheism.

It is the "price" of something. It is the "price" of common sense and reasoning. To believe that nonsense, you pay for it by giving up logic and reasoning.

(06-03-2016 02:23 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Even theists understand this, on some level. Ultimately, the only reason for God himself existing is "because".

Right, because God is metaphysically necessary. The universe ISN'T metaphysically necessary...it is contingent, it didn't have to be here.

Comparing more apples and oranges, are we?

(06-03-2016 02:23 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Wow indeed. What the hell are you on about?

The guy that believes that the universe popped into being out of nothing is asking me "what the hell are you on about" Laugh out load

(06-03-2016 02:23 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Intelligence is not the issue. The genetic algorithm functions without any need for an intelligent agency.

1. Instructions require intelligence.
2. DNA is instructions
3. Therefore, DNA requires intelligence

Simple, sound, and valid syllogism.

(06-03-2016 02:23 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  In fact, in many instances, it can produce things better than a human's creations - this is why it has been adapted for use in computer programming, to produce algorithms more efficient than what a programmer could create directly.

Again, computers are intelligently designed, sir. When computer programs start being created by some naturalistic process with no intelligence, then you would have a comparison that wasn't faulty. Until then, you have a faulty comparison fallacy on your hands.

But then again, you've hand your hands full with all sorts of those.

(06-03-2016 02:23 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  But then, since you don't understand what the phrase "genetic algorithm" means, this is all going over your head.

Doesn't matter what the phrase "genetic algorithm" means, because just by even mentioning "genetics" you are are implying pre-existent DNA, which is what the questions of origins is being asked in regards too in the first place.

(06-03-2016 02:23 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I literally just answered that in the section that you quoted. Read before responding.

It is funny how you swear you are answering the question, yet you are unable to go in a lab and produce the effect. I guess there really is a difference between merely "talking" and "doing".

(06-03-2016 02:23 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Yes. And again, your personal incredulity is not an argument.

The prices are are rising...steadily..

(06-03-2016 02:23 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The comparison has nothing to do with the origins. It deals only with the ability for systems, such as brains and computers, to create abstract representations.

The difference is, Bill Gates can take me to a lab and show me how to create a computer program/code, using physical materials.

A neuroscientists cannot take me to a lab and show me how to create consciousness from physical materials.

Faulty comparison.

(06-03-2016 02:23 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  In fact, it is about as far from a false comparison as it is possible to be, as the brain is literally a computer - just an organic one, rather than an artificial one.

Ok, fine...then show me how neurochemicals can get a person to "think" of an apple. A computer programmer can get an apple to appear on the computer screen, can't he? Well, show me how neurochemicals can get an apple to appear on the screen (the mind).

You are the one making the comparison between the two as similar, so I expect the same kind of results from both.

(06-03-2016 02:23 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And before you start screeching about that, this is another thing that we know to be true, and is trivially easy to demonstrate. The brain meets the strict mathematical definition of "computer". It can demonstrably compute, because it can emulate the actions of a Turing machine. It is a computer.

Less talk, more action.

(06-03-2016 02:23 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Except the Blue Brain Project and integrated information theory, both of which explicitly deal with this.

I've already researched that garbage, and no, it doesn't.

(06-03-2016 02:23 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Then Google it, you lazy bum.

Why should I? Hell, it should all be within the same context of the other stuff you quoted from him. Just go a little higher in the paragraph, or a little lower, you will find it.

(06-03-2016 02:23 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Philosophy of religion, Call.

His degree is in apologetics.

Hmm, lets see..

Wheaton College — B. A. Communications, high honors1971
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School — M. A. Philosophy of Religion, summa cum laude 1975
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School — M. A. Church History, summa cum laude1975
University of Birmingham, England — Ph.D. Philosophy1977
Universität München, Germany — D. Theol. Theology1984


http://www.reasonablefaith.org/william-l...z42AKk3UDH

As you can see, his MASTERS in Philosophy of Religion (1975) is to be distinct from his PH.D in Philosophy (1977).

Educate yourself, sir.

(06-03-2016 02:23 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And I told you that I'm not going to play stupid time-wasting games. Present your evidence or get out.

SMH.

(06-03-2016 02:23 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  ...And?

Disorder and chaos does not produce low entropy, sir. You get a deck of cards and throw them in the air, you will only get disorder...and high disorder. You can do this a million times and you will get the same results.

In order to believe what you believe, you have to believe that the universe popped in to being, uncaused out of nothing with structure and order...mathematically precise structure and order..which would be the first/only time that has EVER happened in the history of the universe.

So in other words, it happened then, but it hasn't happened since. SMH.

(06-03-2016 02:23 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Ladies and gentlemen, Call of the Wild's understanding of logic in one sentence.

Laugh out load

Well, it was a pleasure, sir. It was nice to be able to intellectual spar with someone. My sword has been sharpened, and I appreciate the exchanges. I've done my part for the kingdom.

I really do hope that one day you will see the light. Accept Christian theism. At least be open to what we are presenting, can you give that much? Watch the debates, read the books on the subject.

Life is good, but as good as it is, it is only finite. Eternity is much longer than the 80 years or so that man is to live. You owe it to your eternal soul to at least examine the evidence and be open to it. Give it a try. Can't hurt, but it may help.

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2016, 05:30 PM (This post was last modified: 06-03-2016 05:57 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(06-03-2016 05:04 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I really do hope that one day you will see the light. Accept Christian theism. At least be open to what we are presenting, can you give that much?

Consider Christian atheism. At least be open to what it is suggesting. Universal reconciliation and shit. Can you give that much?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2016, 11:54 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(06-03-2016 04:42 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(06-03-2016 02:36 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I'll have to think about that one. You may be right.
I see it more as "applicable" (or not). Of course WITH EVIDENCE, it's all logical. Logic never predicted Uncertainty, and Relativity etc, (and as i see it, "no one reference point for space time" seems rather illogical).

Well, again, it all comes down to evidence. Einstein didn't just pluck the theory of relativity out of a hat. It was the result of a series of studies of the mathematics behind physics. I would argue that relativity is entirely logical.

It is, however, extremely counterintuitive, which I think is what you were trying to say to begin with. "Logical" and "what the average human mind would come up with" are rarely the same thing.

Yes. I can agree with that.
When COTW says things like "the universe couldn't just pop of of nothing", that is not logic. It's "intuition". "Could not pop out of nothing" sounds logical, but is not.
It's an attempt at using an (apparently) "intuitive" argument. WLC uses it all the time, and has been shown in debates, why it's not applicable. In fact it's a very illogical and inappropriate thing to say, with the prevailing conditions taken into account.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2016, 11:54 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(06-03-2016 05:04 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Alright...the grand finale, before I leave you to your absurdities...

Truly, my life is diminished by the loss of this stimulating conversation.

(06-03-2016 05:04 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Apparently, you don't know that the word "eternity" does not always necessarily mean "in time". It can also mean "outside of time" / (timeless)

.http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eternity/

"Eternity as timelessness, and eternity as everlastingness, have been distinguished".

Oh, look. An incoherent idea. I'm astonished, really.

Regardless, all previously enumerated issues with your hypothetical scenario stand. Time is a dimension, not something that merely pops into being to differentiate between static and dynamic universes, and the creation of time occurring within time remains contradictory.

(06-03-2016 05:04 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Not only that, but in the scenario, time doesn't exist because there were no moments prior (past) or no moments after (future).

Except that your very own scenario relies on the fact that there are moments after.

(06-03-2016 05:04 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Um, ex nihilo means "out of nothing", sir, and in the scenario the horse popped into your living room ex nihilo (out of nothing).

I address this in the very next sentence. I say again, do not attempt to fisk me if you do not know how it works. You only make yourself look like even more of a fool.

(06-03-2016 05:04 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  It does happen within space-time, sir. It is called the space-time continuum.

The space-time continuum did not come into existence within space-time. That is rather the point.

(06-03-2016 05:04 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Right, because God is metaphysically necessary.

No. Apologists assert that a god is metaphysically necessary. None have succeeded in putting forth any proof, evidence, or even a coherent idea as to why we might accept this as true.

(06-03-2016 05:04 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  2. DNA is instructions

We have been over this. DNA is only a set of instructions in the figurative sense. In the actual, it is a string of chemicals doing what chemicals do.

(06-03-2016 05:04 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  When computer programs start being created by some naturalistic process with no intelligence, then you would have a comparison that wasn't faulty. Until then, you have a faulty comparison fallacy on your hands.

Again, even granting that computers are artificial, this is not a false comparison. You do not understand what that phrase means.

(06-03-2016 05:04 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Doesn't matter what the phrase "genetic algorithm" means

Yes, it does.

(06-03-2016 05:04 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  because just by even mentioning "genetics" you are are implying pre-existent DNA

No, I'm not. The genetic algorithm has nothing to do with DNA.

You do not understand what the phrase "genetic algorithm" means.

(06-03-2016 05:04 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  The difference is, Bill Gates can take me to a lab and show me how to create a computer program/code, using physical materials.

A neuroscientists cannot take me to a lab and show me how to create consciousness from physical materials.

Denying the existence of logical deduction again. Repeating the argument from personal incredulity fallacy.

Do you have anything new?

(06-03-2016 05:04 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Ok, fine...then show me how neurochemicals can get a person to "think" of an apple.

I have already linked you to an article regarding a study which does exactly that, to the point that a machine which reads the neurochemical activity of the brain can then produce a copy of the image in question.

Read before responding.

(06-03-2016 05:04 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I've already researched that garbage, and no, it doesn't.

Yes, they do.

(06-03-2016 05:04 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Why should I?

Because I gave you a source, the specific lines in question, and so on. If you still doubt it, it's a work of thirty seconds to look it up for yourself.

I am hardly inclined to spoon-feed you, considering that literally every other source you've been given has been dismissed out of hand without any understanding or effort on your part whatsoever.

(06-03-2016 05:04 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  As you can see, his MASTERS in Philosophy of Religion (1975) is to be distinct from his PH.D in Philosophy (1977).

Even that is in philosophy of religion. Craig himself openly states that he studied specifically theological philosophy while at Birmingham, under a professor of theology (John Hicks), stated that his goal while there was to formulate a cosmological argument for the existence of God, and so on. Craig simply prefers to refer to it simply as a doctorate in philosophy because he has a penchant for puffery.

(06-03-2016 05:04 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(06-03-2016 02:23 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And I told you that I'm not going to play stupid time-wasting games. Present your evidence or get out.

SMH.

None, then. Not surprising.

(06-03-2016 05:04 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Disorder and chaos does not produce low entropy, sir.

I reiterate my previous point about you not actually understanding what the second law of thermodynamics says or implies about the entropic state of the universe. I could repeat the details about open systems and so forth, but you aren't listening and wouldn't understand in any case.

Anyone interested can re-read my previous posts.

(06-03-2016 05:04 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  It was nice to be able to intellectual spar with someone. My sword has been sharpened, and I appreciate the exchanges.

Myself, I have earned a new appreciation for the phrase "never wrestle with a pig; you'll only get dirty, and the pig will enjoy it".

(06-03-2016 05:04 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I really do hope that one day you will see the light. Accept Christian theism. At least be open to what we are presenting, can you give that much? Watch the debates, read the books on the subject.

I am open. It just happens to be the case that you are peddling bunk.

(06-03-2016 05:04 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  You owe it to your eternal soul to at least examine the evidence and be open to it.

There is no such thing as a soul, but you can rest assured that I have examined the evidence quite thoroughly regardless.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
07-03-2016, 12:01 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Wail of the Child has never addressed who is the creator of the Reality, ... a Reality in which a being (his god) is SUBJECT to the laws of that very Reality, ("necessary"). His god can't have created the very larger Reality to which itself is subject (to). It stumped him. It's why he won't interact with some. His apologetics never told him the answer to that. He has no answer to that.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2016, 11:58 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(25-02-2015 07:30 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(14-02-2015 07:50 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  I was just wondering. Theists tell me that their god created everything in existence from a supernatural realm outside of existence. Leaving aside the self contradictory notion of something existing outside of existence, who created the supernatural realm?

It's a very thin veneer applied to the Cosmological Argument to cover up the special pleading.

Obviously, as soon as someone who makes this argument asserts that God was the first cause, the next question out of anyone's mouth who is honest is "what caused God?". If they say "nothing", then they have just violated the same universal rule the used to assert God, so they would be resorting to special pleading to justify the hypocrisy. If they they list some cause, then they just kicked the can back a step, and you can ask what caused that cause.

So, to break out of this conundrum, they assert that God exists outside of time, which means he has no cause, as we understand it. Of course, playing this fast and loose with things raises several other questions:
  • If you believe something can exist without being caused, how do you know the universe needs to be caused?
  • If you believe that the universe was created by something "outside of time", how do you know that thing is intelligent?
  • If God existed outside of time before creating everything, what was he doing for infinity years by himself? Sure, you can say he's "outside of time" and that there wasn't infinite time before the creation, but at that point, everything just becomes incoherent. How could he have acted to create everything if there is no time or causality? Its self-defeating.
So interestingly enough you have to acknowledge a beginning to time and mass and energy. So your first point is invalid. Red blue shifting has gaurnteed that time and space has a beginning. So even when claiming God as omnipresent you still have to claim the universe and all other possible universes whether claiming multiverse or not finite. Leading to point 2 if the finite was created by the infinite by definition of creation itself the infinite has to be intelligent. Creating has to be done in intelligence especially when the creation is as complex as our universe. If you can question the intelligence of a creator that created the universe which includes you and I then you have to question if you and I are intelligent beings. Lastly in point 3 infinity is timeless so it's not like the creator sat around for 2 million years and then created. It would have to be literally just there infinity doesn't have a term like waiting since waiting is based on time. Infinity is coherent. If it weren't then newton's laws of gravity are incoherent because they were infinite. In fact when you state 'If they say "nothing", then they have just violated the same universal rule the used to assert God' you acknowledge a universal law that had to be true at all times. In other words you acknowledge that something outside of time can exist. That law itself has special pleading because it couldn't of been created by humans. Rather it had to be found because it is not modifiable for the sake of argument.
There is special pleading because as intelligent thinking beings we have observed a beginning to time and space we have made the infinite universe finite. This creates the problem of what made us have a beginning because as far as we know everything with a beginning has a cause for existence. So pleading an infinite anything is not illogical.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2016, 01:13 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(07-03-2016 11:58 AM)Babakazoo Wrote:  So interestingly enough you have to acknowledge a beginning to time and mass and energy. So your first point is invalid. Red blue shifting has gaurnteed that time and space has a beginning. So even when claiming God as omnipresent you still have to claim the universe and all other possible universes whether claiming multiverse or not finite. Leading to point 2 if the finite was created by the infinite by definition of creation itself the infinite has to be intelligent. Creating has to be done in intelligence especially when the creation is as complex as our universe. If you can question the intelligence of a creator that created the universe which includes you and I then you have to question if you and I are intelligent beings. Lastly in point 3 infinity is timeless so it's not like the creator sat around for 2 million years and then created. It would have to be literally just there infinity doesn't have a term like waiting since waiting is based on time. Infinity is coherent. If it weren't then newton's laws of gravity are incoherent because they were infinite. In fact when you state 'If they say "nothing", then they have just violated the same universal rule the used to assert God' you acknowledge a universal law that had to be true at all times. In other words you acknowledge that something outside of time can exist. That law itself has special pleading because it couldn't of been created by humans. Rather it had to be found because it is not modifiable for the sake of argument.
There is special pleading because as intelligent thinking beings we have observed a beginning to time and space we have made the infinite universe finite. This creates the problem of what made us have a beginning because as far as we know everything with a beginning has a cause for existence. So pleading an infinite anything is not illogical.

[Image: 538.jpg]

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
07-03-2016, 01:22 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
More seriously, Babakazoo, welcome to the forum. Glad to have you here. But I'm afraid that your post is an incoherent mess, to the point that I find it almost impossible to tell what you are trying to say.

Regardless, here is my attempt to respond to the most salient points.

(07-03-2016 11:58 AM)Babakazoo Wrote:  So interestingly enough you have to acknowledge a beginning to time and mass and energy.

Yes.

(07-03-2016 11:58 AM)Babakazoo Wrote:  Leading to point 2 if the finite was created by the infinite by definition of creation itself the infinite has to be intelligent.

No.

There is no reason to believe that the universe was created by anything, infinite or otherwise - and the concept of "the infinite" creating anything is incoherent to begin with.

(07-03-2016 11:58 AM)Babakazoo Wrote:  Creating has to be done in intelligence especially when the creation is as complex as our universe.

Complexity is not an indication of an intelligent creator.

(07-03-2016 11:58 AM)Babakazoo Wrote:  If you can question the intelligence of a creator that created the universe which includes you and I then you have to question if you and I are intelligent beings.

No.

(07-03-2016 11:58 AM)Babakazoo Wrote:  Lastly in point 3 infinity is timeless so it's not like the creator sat around for 2 million years and then created.

If infinity is "timeless", it cannot create anything. Causal relationships require the existence of time.

(07-03-2016 11:58 AM)Babakazoo Wrote:  Infinity is coherent. If it weren't then newton's laws of gravity are incoherent because they were infinite.

What.

(07-03-2016 11:58 AM)Babakazoo Wrote:  In fact when you state 'If they say "nothing", then they have just violated the same universal rule the used to assert God' you acknowledge a universal law that had to be true at all times. In other words you acknowledge that something outside of time can exist.

No.

Pointing out an inconsistency in the premises of an argument is not, in any way, an acceptance that these premises are true. Almost exactly the opposite, in fact.

(07-03-2016 11:58 AM)Babakazoo Wrote:  That law itself has special pleading because it couldn't of been created by humans. Rather it had to be found because it is not modifiable for the sake of argument.

What.

(07-03-2016 11:58 AM)Babakazoo Wrote:  ...as far as we know everything with a beginning has a cause for existence.

No.

(07-03-2016 11:58 AM)Babakazoo Wrote:  So pleading an infinite anything is not illogical.

Yes, it is.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Unbeliever's post
07-03-2016, 02:08 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
I just counted: 10 lines with 10 times the word "create" or "creator".
Thats once per line. Laughat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
07-03-2016, 02:57 PM (This post was last modified: 07-03-2016 04:40 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(07-03-2016 11:58 AM)Babakazoo Wrote:  So interestingly enough you have to acknowledge a beginning to time and mass and energy.

No you don't. If the Big Bang was a singularity, ALL physical laws as we know them break down. If, as Roger Penrose thinks, this universe is but one of an infinite series of bangs and re-bangs, that would be sufficient to meet your requirements. We simply don't know what happened very close to the Big Bang. You have also not demonstrated that a "beginning" of anything is required. So, his first point is entirely valid. There could have been a shift, a phase change, or countless other possibilities.

Omnipresent, (by definition "everywhere") assumes space, a priori. There is no "present" without space. You point is incoherent, and meaningless.

Quote:if the finite was created by the infinite by definition of creation itself the infinite has to be intelligent.

Assertion with no support. An infinite could have automated the process.
Completely false. You have no proof that happened. An omnipotent god could have created FINITE universe creators, unless it's not omnipotent.

Creation is an ACT. Acts require prior judgement, thought, intention, and TIME.
Your second point is incoherent.

Quote:Creating has to be done in intelligence especially when the creation is as complex as our universe.

Completely false. Chaos Theory shows that order arises spontaneously in this universe. VERY COMPLEX order. Your third point is incoherent. (As well as a "god of the gaps" and an "argument from ignorance"). You also have not defined your terms. At what point in the continuum of of complexity, does it EXACTLY require a god, or intelligence.
You can't say. Your point is a red herring, and unexamined, and not specific. An opinion. Nothing more.
Evolution, (no gods and no intelligence seem to be doing ok on the complexity front). See the blood coagulation cascade, and the Krebs cycle. We KNOW how they could have evolved.

Quote:If you can question the intelligence of a creator that created the universe which includes you and I then you have to question if you and I are intelligent beings.

Only if you are a presuppositionalist and NEED a god. (BTW we know why you NEED a god. It's psychology, not a religious question). We know how brains evolved. "Intelligence", (a PROCESS), and "creation", (an ACTION) without time are meaningless. You lose again. We are not bound by your idiotic presuppositions.
This is an absurd argument. By your reasoning you deity should have done a better job. Many animals have varying degrees of intelligence. Even humans are somewhat stupid, at times. Why couldn't your dumb god have done a better job at making finite beings more intelligent ? There is no establish standard of perfection, and you have not proposed one.

Quote:Lastly in point 3 infinity is timeless so it's not like the creator sat around for 2 million years and then created. It would have to be literally just there infinity doesn't have a term like waiting since waiting is based on time.

Exactly. And that's YOUR problem. An infinite deity who acts AT SOME POINT in it's timelesss existence, refutes it's own infinity by the act, sets an endpoint to the past and future by that act, (as well as demanding his son to act IN TIME to CHANGE something). Existence of a god is also incoherent, as it forced to be embedded in Realty as the opposite of non-existence for eternity, and that cannot be the creator of REALITY. The whole of Reality remains unexplained even with a god that "exists". Your god did not create Reality therefore if it is REQUIRED to participate in it by (only) "existing". What did create the Reality your deity exists in ?

Strike five. You're out.

BTW, I realize you go to COTW's apologectics grade school, but "guaranteed" is not spelled "gaurnteed"

We are not designed "intelligently". We are designed as a fucking mess.
Go to any pediatric genetics clinic for a week, and you'll wonder how most of them are able to live at all.

Intelligent design is an argument AGAINT a god. An omnipotent god could make life happen, no matter what the design, without being constrained by the physical law we know, could have , in all probability, eventually allow it to evolve anyway. Or is your god just trying to trick you, by doing things in just this way ?

Faith is a gift, according to Christian theology. There are no "proofs" for god, .... or faith would not be required.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: