Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-12-2013, 02:50 AM (This post was last modified: 20-12-2013 02:59 AM by savedwheat.)
Video RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
(20-12-2013 02:46 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  It makes fine sense if one understands the notion of an infinite set, unbound above OR below, from a mathematical standpoint.

It's not about numbers, but cause and effect. Everything we observe in nature has a cause. This is why we might have to spend considerable time on the fact that non-existence can't cause anything before we get into infinite regress, for that which does not exist can't cause anything. Don't be delusional.

The reason why a billion pound gorilla doesn't flatten cities is because he doesn't exist so the billion pound gorilla can't cause anything because it does not exist. It is just fantasy, like claiming non-existence caused a mud pie.

What a goofy reason to reject God.



Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2013, 02:54 AM (This post was last modified: 20-12-2013 04:46 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
(20-12-2013 02:47 AM)savedwheat Wrote:  We observe trillions of cause and effects in nature and no spontaneous generation of anything, for that which does not exist can't cause anything to exist. That which does not exist always does not exist, always and anon. This is the evidence. I can only go with the evidence, which is why I am speaking to you the way I am. These trillions of cause and effects are an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Think of yourself like a gambler who is rolling the dice and hoping to come up with a 1 in a 10 trillion sided die. Good luck with that. What you are engaging in is called false humility. If trillions of cause and effects and no hard evidence to the contrary is not good enough for you then nothing will be. That's why Hell is necessary for the obstinate and belligerent.

Yep, that's it. You're either a troll, a poe, or an ignorant fucktard (and most likely all 3) so I'm done with your shit. Have fun wallowing in your own stupidity while imagine everyone else in your made-up Hell.

[Image: Au3eK4L.gif]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
20-12-2013, 03:14 AM
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
(20-12-2013 02:50 AM)savedwheat Wrote:  It's not about numbers, but cause and effect. Everything we observe in nature has a cause. This is why we might have to spend considerable time on the fact that non-existence can't cause anything before we get into infinite regress, for that which does not exist can't cause anything. Don't be delusional.

The reason why a billion pound gorilla doesn't flatten cities is because he doesn't exist so the billion pound gorilla can't cause anything because it does not exist. It is just fantasy, like claiming non-existence caused a mud pie.

What a goofy reason to reject God.




Did that guy fart at 2:05? Hobo

"I feel as though the camera is almost a kind of voyeur in Mr. Beans life, and you just watch this bizarre man going about his life in the way that he wants to."

-Rowan Atkinson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2013, 03:31 AM
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
(20-12-2013 03:14 AM)Can_of_Beans Wrote:  Did that guy fart at 2:05?

Sounds like the chair leaned on. My chair make noises too. If he was an atheist though it would probably be a fart.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2013, 03:51 AM
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
(20-12-2013 02:50 AM)savedwheat Wrote:  It's not about numbers, but cause and effect. Everything we observe in nature has a cause. This is why we might have to spend considerable time on the fact that non-existence can't cause anything before we get into infinite regress, for that which does not exist can't cause anything. Don't be delusional.

Ok, being serious...

How many of the things that we observe in nature require God as an explanation? Historically, God only shows up at the limit of our understanding and as our understanding grows he has fewer places to hide which is why we find ourselves arguing about the origin of the universe and why there is something rather than nothing.

So when you consider that causes we observe in nature don't require God, wouldn't it be more reasonable to conclude that the universe didn't require God either?

[Image: then-a-miracle-happens.gif?w=490]

"I feel as though the camera is almost a kind of voyeur in Mr. Beans life, and you just watch this bizarre man going about his life in the way that he wants to."

-Rowan Atkinson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Can_of_Beans's post
20-12-2013, 04:02 AM
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
(20-12-2013 03:31 AM)savedwheat Wrote:  
(20-12-2013 03:14 AM)Can_of_Beans Wrote:  Did that guy fart at 2:05?

Sounds like the chair leaned on. My chair make noises too. If he was an atheist though it would probably be a fart.

Ah yes, chairism, also mentioned in Genesis. Do you *believe* in leaning on chairs ? I mean I know it says true believers don't fart and instead lean on chairs in the Bible, but doesn't that seem a bit far-fetched to you ? I guess, you claim to lean on chairs yourself so maybe you have personal experience ?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like morondog's post
20-12-2013, 04:06 AM
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
Same old Kalam cosmological argument that WLC is pedaling . Boring and debunked many times over. Even WLC admitted that it boils down to faith and that it doesn't work without presuppositions.

Only thing I find interesting is how people like savedwheat come here and present their "knowledge" expecting us to go "wooow, we never heard that, now we are all convinced" .

Bro, in the 4 months I am on this forum, you are at least 4th person to come up with the same argument, and there was probably a couple more that went unnoticed.

I can't even be bothered to post "not impressed" meme.

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Slowminded's post
20-12-2013, 04:08 AM
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
(20-12-2013 01:19 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  First off, welcome to the board! Some of us don't bite. Evil_monster We're pretty welcoming IF you don't engage in bigotry, repetitions of the same fallacies, or, you know, general trolling behavior. For a list of things NOT to do, read PJ's posts.

(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  I just wanted you to know what I believe, why I believe it and why I can't change what I believe, because the evidence is too substantial and powerful.

In that case I'll share what I believe about what you believe. As for evidence being too substantial and powerful, it would be a welcome exchange from the flimsy, dubious, ever-repeated-despite-being-long-debunked stuff that normally gets thrown our way. Hit us with your best shot.

(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  For me there is no debate between atheism and theism, because I know the universe can't come from nothing--that which does not exist--for that which does not exist can't cause anything as it does not exist. So the universe has to come from something.


..... dammit, this is Kalam, isn't it? This is that flimsy, dubious, ever-repeated-despite-being-long-debunked stuff that either bores us, or pisses us off like a telemarkerter who won't take no for an answer even after we've called her out on her known scam the past thirty times she's called.

But, you're new here, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and (if this IS Kalam) I'll walk you through what's wrong with it.

So far, you have ignored the possibility of an eternal universe, or non-eternal time, or the possibility of a causeless effect. Let's see if you address these possibilities as you go.

(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  But what is that something? For starters, that something can't be an infinite regress of cause and effects, because if there was an infinite regress of cause and effects in nature, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened, having had an eternity to do so. Infinite regress further contradicts itself because if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, you should have never existed, because a past eternity would go on for eternity never reaching this point now today.

False on every count.

First, your argument against infinite regress on the grounds of never reaching the present is a common error. It's like saying that the universe can't extend infinitely in every direction, because we'd never have reached this present point from the edge. Or it's akin to saying that infinite negative numbers are nonsensical, because we'd have no place to start counting and thus the number 4 could never be reached. This is patently false. We start counting at 0, or 1, or wherever, and we can count either forward or back. This is also how we view time. We are in the present, and when we examine history we are attempting to view backwards. We don't have to start at some arbitrary beginning to reach the present. This sort of misunderstanding is very common among people who know just enough math to vaguely get the notion of infinity, but not nearly enough to begin to understand it. Which is, most everyone with a basic math education. That said, infinity is quite tame for those with the proper mathematical tools to analyze it (I'd be happy to share if you'd like), and does not actually suffer from the obstacles that your argument assumes as its central premise.

Yet if you won't accept that infinite regress is viable, you have bought yourself nothing. Your argument is basically that 1 (infinite regress) is impossible, 2 (a universe with infinite history) implies 1, and that therefore 2 is also impossible and one must accept its negation (a universe with finite history). The logic is valid in its structure but premise 1 is flawed. Here's the problem. Or at least one problem.

Consider a very basic sequence of cause and effect. (We'll ignore the quantum for simplicity, but factoring quantum mechanics in changes little.) Imagine a particle, say an air molecule, moving through room from point Alpha to point Omega in the course of 4 minutes. For simplicity, we'll say it doesn't get redirected significantly. This simple event can be seen as part of a sequence of cause and effect. Once at point Omega, its presence there, with its particular velocity, can cause all sorts of events that its absence would not have permitted. On the other side of the room, something caused that particle to be present at point Alpha, with the velocity that would eventually carry it forward to point Omega. In short, there is an event of moving from point Alpha to point Omega, which is caused by some other event and in turn causes one or more other events.

So far, so good.

Now let's divide this path in half. Let's look at the midpoint halfway between Alpha and Omega. We can ask, what about the event of traveling from Alpha to the midpoint, and then the separate event of traveling from the midpoint to Omega? Obviously, the first causes the second. Let's redefine these as two paths. The first half of the trip is path 1, beginning at Alpha-1 (the original Alpha) and ending at Omega-1 (the original midpoint). Path 2 continues where path 1 left off, beginning at Alpha-2 (the original midpoint, which is also Omega-1... yes, I'm using two different names for the same point) and ends at Omega-2. Note that the overall course of the molecule is identical, but we've classified its passage as 2 events rather than 1. That said, if the molecule moving across that larger interval of space is to be called an event, so to must be the molecule moving across the smaller intervals of space.

You might have seen the problem. But in case you haven't, here it is. Let's take those 2 intervals and divide both in half. Now we have 4 intervals and 4 events, still taking place over the course of a minute, each event being the cause of the next in turn. Divide those in half. 8 events in 4 minutes. Divide in half again. 16 in 4 minutes. Divide again, and again, and again.... and there's no limit. No bar to keep us from dividing up intervals forever. No granularity to space. Nothing to keep this simple event of a particle crossing a room from actually being an infinite number of events, each a link in a chain of causation. Infinite regression... in the course of 4 minutes.

So unless you wish to maintain that the universe began less than 4 minutes ago, positing a finite universe does not get you away from infinite regression. (And even if you did wish to posit that it's only 1 minute old, we can look at the case of the particle crossing the room in 30 seconds. And so forth for any age you wish to suggest, unless you wish to suggest it began this very instant. And... this instant. And... this instant.) In short, while premise 2 (an infinite history) implies premise 1 (infinite regression), taking the negation of premise 2 (a finite history) ALSO implies premise 1 (infinite regression). This disproves your premise that infinite regression is impossible. It is, in fact, necessity.

This is known as Zeno's Paradox. (Or, rather, one of many of Zeno's Paradoxes, all built around the same theme.) The name's something of a misnomer, because it's not actually a paradox. It used to be, but it isn't any more. You see, the ancient Greeks used a very different system of mathematics than we do. Greek mathematics was built on notions of geometry and proportionality, especially in triangles and ruler-and-compass constructions. There was no room in Greek mathematics for nullity (the number 0), or negative numbers, or irrational numbers (literally, numbers that can't be constructed as a fraction or ratio, though the pejorative "irrational" also comes from a criticism that one is constructing wacky, non-Greek numbers.) There was no room in Greek mathematics for the infinite, or the infinitesimal. Greek mathematics was very limited, and very flawed. Zeno of Elea proposed his paradoxes to highlight some of the consequences of these flaws. Greek math could not handle the scenarios he portrayed. Modern math does not suffer from the same limitations as Greek math, and can handle Zeno's paradoxes easily, as any calculus student knows. The infinite, including infinite regress, is simple to tame.

You've most likely encountered the Kalam Cosmological Argument from William Lane Craig or one of his parrots, but it was formulated by a Muslim attempting to prove the existence of Allah. However, the Kalam Cosmological Argument was itself a minor refinement on the existing plain vanilla Cosmological Argument, codified in ancient Greece by Aristotle. Aristotle employed the logic of Greek mathematics heavily into his reasoning, including his rejection of the infinite in his Cosmological Argument. (He also used proportionality of similar triangles as a justification for aristocracy. The mind boggles.) When he did this, he introduced the same flaws into the Cosmological Argument that Zeno made the world aware of... and those flaws have lingered there ever since. (Nor could Aristotle claim ignorance. He was well aware of Zeno's paradoxes. He included them in one of his works, and while he attempted to refute some of them, he could not refute them all... nor would any refutation have actually been possible in Greek mathematics.)

So, before we go on, let me just make this clear. Whatever trusted source you absorbed this argument from, whoever you believed when they told it to you? Either they concealed from you, or didn't know, or didn't care, or didn't understand, that it has been debunked for over two dozen centuries. Even by the standards of intellectual conservatism, waiting a quarter-myriad of years to notice a criticism is pushing it. When you call on us to hold ourselves to a high standard of evidence (and I dare say that I hold myself to a higher standard than you have provided here), I suggest that you demand that same standard from whoever taught you this never-sufficiently-staked-in-the-heart claptrap.

Now. Moving on to your assertion that we would have existed before? No we wouldn't have. You are assuming that infinite time is enough to overcome infintesimal probability. This is a mathematically invalid argument. In some cases it certainly is, in some cases it can be, and in some cases it definitively isn't. Sometimes infinities cancel and sometimes they don't. I can easilly construct a dry, boring thought-experiment of a random number which has virtually zero probability of being generated (though is technically within the realm of possibility), no matter how many times we run our random number generator. But I'll spare you the math. Suffice to say that you are operating on a naive, intuitive notion of infinity, when there is nothing about infinity that behaves intuitively and it will eat unsuspecting naivety for breakfast.

I ran a bit long there. I've knocked the foundation out of Kalam, but I'll continue redundantly pointing out the further flaws. But as the main task is already done, I'll be brief(er).

(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  Therefore, it stands to reason that nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated that we can call the uncreated Creator that always existed.

And how does this Creator avoid the same problems of infinite regression that you imagine exist for an infinite universe? Again, Kalam hoists itself on its own petard.

(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  And since the uncreated Creator can't be less than us,

Assertion made without support. That which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  ... it must have a mind for that which is less than a mind can't cause a mind.

A claim supported by an unsupported assertion. In particular, it utterly ignores models of evolution or even random assemblage... which your notions of infinity would demand becomes certainty with an infinite history. Ignoring alternatives is not acceptable when one wishes to argue that one's hypothesis is true by virtue of being the only possibility.

(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  A mind is needed to create a mind--with self-awareness and God-consciousness.

Not only unsupported, but undefined.

(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  And we are personal so the uncreated Creator must be personal for the impersonal can't cause the personal. And as we are accessible so is the uncreated Creator must be accessible as His standards cannot be below our own.

All of this is based on the unsupported assertion that your (unjustified) Creator is like us. Also, you leave "accessibility" undefined.

(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  There are only 3 faiths in the world that are accessible with enough adherents to span the globe and not hidden from plain view or difficult to access: Christianity, Islam and Hinduism.

Why is popularity true? When Christianity didn't have the numbers to span the globe, say, 1800 years ago, did that make it false? If not, why do the small numbers of present cults, or old polytheisms, make them false? What about Judaism? Was it false 2500 years ago? If so, how can Christianity be true? If not, how do you dismiss it as false today? I'll let these criticisms stand as a taste of the flaws here, but to be comprehensive I'd have to walk you through every last religion on the globe. Including Pastafarianism. AND we'd have to consider the possibility that the "true" religion has yet to be revealed to the world at large... just as the Yahweh or whatever you call your god had yet to be revealed to the world at large in the time before Abraham, or make himself accessible, or whatever you call it in your own religion's narrative. Was your god false then and true now? Again, your argument is self defeating. It does not survive its own standards.

(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  But Hinduism is false, because that would be silly for you to come back as a chicken if you were a bad human and never effectively deals with sin by receiving endless chances. And the god of Hinduism, Brahma, is considered impersonal it is said which is below our nature of being personal.

In the Hindu belief system Brahma is father of other gods. How is this impersonal? Also, why would impersonal be below the personal? You have not supported this in the slightest. Why not above impersonal, or to the side?

(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  Islam is false because it has no evidence six centuries later to claim Jesus never even went to the cross, contrary to the scores of evidence, Jesus died on the cross as the most documented person in antiquity who had more sources written about Him than any ten figures combined from antiquity within 150 years of their deaths.

The documents in question are almost incestuously authored. This argument from sheer numbers would be akin to granting legitimacy to the Harry Potter tale from the sheer number of fanfics. For that matter, these documents were selectively preserved in the ages since, and almost certainly most of these would have been lost if not for the observation, confirmation, and selection biases of Christians of later generations. The fact that they were preserved by believers proves only that they believed, not that their beliefs were true.

Also, IIRC correctly, Islam maintains that Jesus APPEARED to have been crucified but instead brought into heaven, which would have been totally consistent with the accounts you name where witnesses were left with the perception that he was, in fact, crucified.

(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  Without knowing anything else, we know, therefore, Christianity must be true.

Any support for this claim in this argument has by now been removed.

(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  But the proof for Christianity (the 66 books of the Bible proves itself to be true) is the resurrection of Jesus proving He is God as only God can resurrect Himself

.... why is God the only one who can resurrect himself? Where is the support that Jesus resurrected himself, rather than being resurrected by an outside agency? For that matter, by now every sentence of your "proof" of Christianity which you have offered lies debunked, and as that is the basis of your present claims, those claims also lie unsupported.

(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  Since there is no naturalistic explanation to account for the multiple eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings, therefore, it must be true they were with Jesus for 40 days after resurrection. Group hallucinations are medically impossible. People don't willingly die for what they know is a lie. The swoon theory wouldn't convince anyone Jesus is the risen Lord. The only plausible explanation is Jesus is the 2nd Person of the Trinity.

Gee, you're not even pretending not to plagiarize Craig at this point. But I would suggest, as a plausible alternative explanation, that the documents you earlier mentioned were authored, say, starting 80 years after the supposed resurrection. This would have been outside of living memory of a historical Jesus, if such existed, or outside of understanding that the tale was a fiction, if the tale was fiction. The eyewitness accounts were part of the authoring, or perhaps passed down through less reliable means than written word, and were never genuine, and those who "died for a lie" were not the ones who knew it was a lie. Alternatively, if that is not a plausible explanation in your eyes, the adherents may have believed that the Jesus tale was metaphorical truth, worth dying for, and the nature of the metaphor has since been forgotten.

But even if neither of these scenarios are plausible (and yet, somehow, the highly fantastical notion of a divine manifestation and resurrection is), please answer these two questions for me:

Do the multiple accounts of Elvis reappearing and walking the world, authored decades after his supposed death, prove that The King is resurrected?

Do the multiple people willing to die for Jim Jones prove that Jim Jones's ministry was true?

If these are not proofs of Elvis's resurrection and Jones's honesty, respectively, then your accounts of witnesses and martyrs are similarly insufficient. Any plausible explanation which you might apply to Elvis or Jones, might in turn be applied to Jesus.

Also, since you are attempting to rely on documentation from the era in question (er, from at least half a century after the era in question), could you explain the utter lack of an eclipse, or accounts of the dead walking in Jerusalem, from independent sources? Greek philosophers should have convened on that city en masse at the reports of an unpredicted eclipse and the dead walking. Thousands of competing explanations, in terms of Pagan gods if nothing else, should have been spun out and debated and written up and sent hither and tither across the Roman Empire. Instead... nothing. Utter silence, utter silence from every conceivable witness, save for the accounts in the Bible.

(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  I also believe God is infinitely greater than us so no amount of work or self-improvement can bridge the gap between us and God. We will always fall short and never fully satisfy God's heart. Islam and Hinduism follow this works based faith scheme of self-improvement, and they can never sure if they are saved. Only in Christianity do you find God personally enters His creation to save us when we can't save ourselves, by taking upon Himself the sins of the world to forgive any who would receive Him to be saved and receive eternal life. Instead of us working our way up to God, God condescends Himself for our benefit and pays the penalty in our stead. That is the greatest love ever known!

I just wanted you to know why I believe what I believe, for I don't know how to overturn this evidence, thus, locked into my faith as a Christian for that is the God I gave my life to be kept when I certainly couldn't keep myself saved. God draws all, but sadly many "draw back unto perdition" (Heb. 10.39). "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand" (John 10.28)

Now you're just listing beliefs without even an attempt to make it sound deep. Also, Bible quotes aren't persuasive to someone who doesn't believe that the Bible is true, which would cover almost any atheist on this board. So why post them? We're not the choir, so why are you preaching to us as if we are? But if it helps, the "evidence" you don't known how to overturn, has now been overturned for you.

(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  I would only ask that you hold yourself to the highest standard of evidence I have provided here. Don't accept anything less.

Held to, and greatly exceeded. Also, "highest" standard? Didn't you claim at the beginning of all this that you had far greater evidence than what you were sharing? (EDIT: Whoops, you weren't claiming that, noticed that on my reread. Withdrawn.)

(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  Praise the Lord!

Aaaaaand now you're telling us to do stuff, when not three paragraphs before you said you were just sharing what you believed.

EDIT: Ye gads, that took me how many hours to write? Lookit all the people who replied before I did. This is all probably redundant by now.
2nd EDIT: Fixed a buncha typos and stuff, a few omitted words, nothing major.

That, sir, was, if I may say so... fucking epic!

We are not worthy.

All praise the mighty Reltzik!

Praise him with great praise.

Bowing

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
20-12-2013, 04:17 AM
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
Reltzik created us! It all makes sense now!

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
20-12-2013, 04:20 AM (This post was last modified: 20-12-2013 04:24 AM by IndianAtheist.)
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  I just wanted you to know what I believe, why I believe it and why I can't change what I believe, because the evidence is too substantial and powerful.
Oh shit i think you might be onto something!
Quote:because I know the universe can't come from nothing--that which does not exist--for that which does not exist can't cause anything as it does not exist. So the universe has to come from something.
AAAAAND you squandered all my expectations of having an intelligible conversation here!

We don't know how exactly universe came to be SO HOW can you even say that it was God ?

For ex: If i find my clothes wet when i wake up do i say "OH IT MUST HAVE BEEN the magical unicorn that came into my dream and urinated on me !!"

THAT IS HOW BIZARRE this "God" idea is.
Quote:because if there was an infinite regress of cause and effects in nature, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now
[Image: o3USf.jpg]
Quote:that we can call the uncreated Creator that always existed.
how is that the creator is uncreated ? if the creator is uncreated then the universe is also uncreated.
Quote:And since the uncreated Creator can't be less than us, it must have a mind for that which is less than a mind can't cause a mind. A mind is needed to create a mind--with self-awareness and God-consciousness. And we are personal so the uncreated Creator must be personal for the impersonal can't cause the personal. And as we are accessible so is the uncreated Creator must be accessible as His standards cannot be below our own. There are only 3 faiths in the world that are accessible with enough adherents to span the globe and not hidden from plain view or difficult to access: Christianity, Islam and Hinduism.


Quote:But Hinduism is false, because that would be silly for you to come back as a chicken if you were a bad human and never effectively deals with sin by receiving endless chances.
Yeah as if having being tortured forever and ever just makes too much damn sense doesn't it ?
Quote:Without knowing anything else, we know, therefore, Christianity must be true.



Dreams/Hallucinations/delusions are not evidence
Wishful thinking is not evidence
Disproved statements&Illogical conclusions are not evidence
Logical fallacies&Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence
Vague prophecies is not evidence
Data that requires a certain belief is not evidence
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: