God/Prime Mover is necessary
Offline Take a look at the universe. It's a series of cause & effect reactions. However, there can't be an infinite series of causers. That is impossible. There HAS to be a prime mover, and that mover is god or anything analogous to such. Saying that there are no beginnings is ridiculous IMO, all one has to to do is follow them back.
Some of you might say " but why assume that there must be a beginning when we have yet to encounter it?"
Because it's illogical - just because we haven't encountered it doesn't make it not so. You simply have to decide whether you want to rely on logic, or data.
Hence, because of the necessity of a prime mover, there must be a god. Therefore, isn't it more reasonable to believe in god than to not to?
Suffice it to say that I believe there must some kind of first principle, unmoved mover, uncaused cause, what have you, whether it be the universe or something else.
Thoughts?
- Login to post comments
- Login to post comments
. Come on already, stop playing hopskotch with it and be a man, you are an atheist supremacist, get over it.
Actually, let me qualify what I said. Positively describing him in human language inevitably contradicts his true nature. For example, if I said, "God is perfect", that is a sentence that is in the PRESENT tense. But that would seemingly contradict the premise that God exists outside of time. Intrinsic in the use of the copula is would be the presupposition of a present state of events. But if God exists outside of time, then God neither is, was, or will be anything. Therefore, any positive descriptions of God have to necessarily be metaphorical in order to be true.
By contrast, you could describe God negatively without invoking the use of metaphor. If I say, "God is not visible", then I am not bounding him up with temporality or spatiality. The sentence is true insofar that it describes a temporal and/or spatial state of affairs, but its negativity does not necessarily place God within that state.
If I say, "God created the universe", then that is a metaphor. It's a sentence in past tense, which would literally imply that at some point in time, God created time, which is contradictory. See above re: positive descriptions of God. So yes, I have consistently used metaphor in my descriptions, but I just never said so because I assumed that you were smart enough to know that. Or did I give you too much credit?
Cool! You're so nice.
Ah! I see the problem now. I was talking about God in the generic. You were talking about the Christian God. Gotcha.
That explains a lot.
What, you're quoting the Bible to tell me what Christians believe? I'm not sure if you've noticed, but much modern Christian belief is hardly based on a whole reading of the Bible. Here's what I've noticed about Christians: there are as many different forms of Christianity as there are Christians.
I was married to an intelligent, educated fundamentalist. (Yeah, I know -- it's a seeming contradiction.) She, and her church (something called "Foursquare" ) believed that God walked the earth, embodied as Christ. We had many, many discussions about this. I could hardly be mistaken. So your assertion is just plain wrong. There are Christians who believe an aspect of God existed as a living person, however transiently.
Now, just because you believe one way does not negate the beliefs of others. She also said something like you say: "Those who don't believe like me aren't real Christians." That argument didn't fly for her, and it won't for you, either.
But, as I said, we were talking at cross-purposes. I apologize that I didn't make it clear enough in my first post that I was talking about generic God, and not the Christian God.
Nope. I'm simply reporting what I'm seeing. One group of Catholics wanted a kid charged with kidnapping when he took a consecrated wafer instead of eating it. Others stated he was literally kidnapping Christ. PZ Meyers recieved threats from outraged Catholics for his wafer stunt, most stating the same thing: that he desecrated the body of Christ.
So, no, I'm not parroting Sam Harris. I've not even read Sam Harris. He is inconsequential to me, as I suspect he and I agree on many things. Why read things you already agree with, and already know?
Aaaanyway, I suspect this could've been an interesting conversation, had I known about our miscommunication right up front.
Hey, thanks for the last word!
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
And she knew that you were an atheist before she married you?
How did that happen?
Well, I tell you what... here's some words from the Council of Trent.,
This is the official position of the Catholic Church, and has been since 1551. So, unless you're willing to tell me that the Pope and the College of Cardinals, who have the authority to alter Catholic Dogma, do not believe in the Catholic Dogma that they haven't altered, then I'm afraid you have to cede the point that some Catholics believe this, even if the Bible says they shouldn't. Which is what Nigel said.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Actually, if that's the official position of the Catholic Church, then that's what ALL Catholics believe, unless they are heretics.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Eh, most members of a religion do tend to be somewhat heretical these days, if not always. It's just impossible to keep any exchange of ideas pure and undiluted through multiple layers of lecturer-and-listener style communication. Just as we can't say that 'all Christians believe the bread and wine is a symbolic representation, because the Bible tells them it is', we can't say that 'all Catholics believe the bread and wine to be an act of literal ritual cannibalism, because Catholic dogma tells them it is'.
What we can say is that if those individuals with the authority to alter the dogma all do not believe in the claims of the dogma, then we can be reasonably sure they would at least have broached the idea of altering the dogma. We have seen no evidence that they have raised this suggestion, and so can feel reasonably comfortable in taking the position that at least some of them do believe it.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Universe was created 13.7 billion years ago. Unknown cause. Why pick god for unknown? Why would anyone call for worship of unknown? Why come up with wish thinking for human afterlife and rules for getting there?
We are part of this Universe, enjoy it.
Welcome to the forums, Ralph
It is impossible for us to imagine a being that transcends space and time because space and time is predicated of everything that we've experienced during our lifetime. Whether knowledge is a priori or a posteriori, experience is necessary to set it into motion. Therefore, it is impossible for us to imagine something that we've never experienced. Yes, I could imagine a unicorn but that's only because I've experienced a horse and horns and I am able to put them together in my mind.
I would make this comparison: If you've attempted to enter 10,000 to the 10,000th power into a calculator, the calculator would go ballistic. Its mind would just be scrambled. Likewise, if in a human calculator, you subtracted space and time from something, our minds would just return "Error". Yet the calculator does not deny the existence of 10,000 to the 10,000th power... and we should not deny the existence of a being that transcends space and time just because we cannot imagine it.
The task of philosophy in general is to look for the first principles of being. Functionally, we go about our daily lives and engage in human discourse by invoking certain patterns and categories of understanding. And it works for us. But then when we look for an ultimate basis, everything breaks down. For example, one of the patterns of our understanding is the notion that nothing can give existence to itself. And functionally, this works for us. And yet when we start to move down the chain, we realize that it no longer makes sense unless we assume that the chain started somewhere. But then our understanding engages in a battle with itself: On the one hand, we demand that something require something other than itself to give way to its existence. And on the other hand, we also demand that everything has to have a beginning. But how can there be a beginning unless there was something which both exists and never began to exist? Then we find that the patterns we created for ourselves based on our a posteriori knowledge are not sufficient in themselves.
The main point that I want to get across is that once we enter this no man's land, we are all faced with the same problem that you are fleshing out. You say that once we start talking about a being who transcends space and time, we can't explain it at all and that means that we believe in nothing. Well misery loves company in this case because, in fact, anything that a scientist may posit as a principle for the origin of everything that is will fly in the face of our patterns of understanding. To say that something came from nothing is even more illogical than saying that something was created by an infinite being. And to say that there exists some static entity within the universe that always was, is, and always will be still flies in the face of our normal pattern of understanding. So if you are looking for a theory of this sort that doesn't fly in the face of convention, you will not find it.
The calculator returns an overflow error because it does not have a memory bank large enough for the calculation to take place. Your argument by analogy fails to persuade because the problem we have set out to discuss—that of the inclusion or exlusion of spacetime into our considerations of motion or causation—does not run into a problem of computational ability, memory overflow, or anything of the sort. The notion simply lacks coherence. No ontology or universe of discourse exists from which we can speak of causation without spacetime. The notion lacks meaning, unlack the commands that the calculator receives. A more appropriate analogy would consist of telling a calculator to compute the value of uggablav to the tollyknockled power. If we anthropomorphize the calculator and look at the input from its perspective, it would throw an error that said invalid input. A corrected analogy, however, would lead to the conclusion that one should not use such input for mathematical operations or theological discussions, which you argue against. Your argument by analogy cannot possibly work as you presented it, and it argues for my position when corrected. Your argument by analogy also fails in another way because analogizing mathematical operations to something without an ontology does not work because one cannot distinguish something from nothing if the something lacks an ontology, thus rendering it as nothing.
You said that we should not deny the existence of a being that transcends space and time just because we cannot imagine it. I agree, because denial involves the rejection of cognitive content, which can only exist for things that have an ontological status. On the other hand, however, we should also not accept it, because acceptance involves the affirmation of the cognitive content, which can only exist for things that have an ontological status. Without an ontological status, you cannot even think of it. You cannot believe in the existence of something you cannot think of. This goes back to the point I made before:
In short, you offered me some apologetics which I had heard before, but you did not effectively address my argument.
Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!
It wasn't an argument from an analogy, it was a qualitative comparison that was meant to help you understand precisely what I was arguing, so you are wasting your time by simply focusing on that. I KNOW that human beings are different from calculators.
Using that logic, we should reject ANY theory regarding the first principles of being because, going back to the point I've made, any principle that we espouse will inevitably bring us into the no man's land of our understanding where everything breaks down.
I would argue that we should, in fact, go there. And for centuries, that is precisely what great people like Aristotle, Plato, Aquinas, Socrates, Kant, Spinoza, Leibniz, Anselm, Augustine, etc. have done. Let's theorize and go beyond our patterns. Do not be fenced in by the world of sense experience.
I probably should have simply said analogy rather than argument by analogy. Regardless, you did not understand my argument. Your statements did not consist only of analogizing humans and calculators in a certain way, but also the sets of input. I argued that you cannot analogize the sets of inputs because the calculator has, in a manner of speaking, a universe of discourse from which to make sense of the input but humans do not, so the mathematical input may make sense but the theological input necessarily cannot until provided with a universe of discourse. I argued that humans should, like the calculator, recognize the invalid-input error.
You did not understand this portion of my argument either. I argued that one can only accept or reject cognitive content. I also argued that the label of a thing ("god"
Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!
But my point was that our thought process is confined to a domain of discourse which CANNOT include God due to our limited categories of understanding, just as certain things are not in the domain of discourse for the calculator, like overly large numbers. You could only list a finite amount of numbers that could be dealt with by a particular calculator because the calculator is limited. So there are overt similarities between humans and calculators.
I did understand your argument, but I do not think you've understood my rebuttal. My point was that anytime we trespass upon the subject of, for lack of a better phrase, how it all began... we enter a zone which, from an intellectual standpoint, is "no holds barred". This is true whether you posit a metaphysical or natural scientific explanation for the origin of the universe. Thus, you will never get any sort of cognitive content. You will end up with something that transcends our patterns of understanding or a priori categories.
For example, take the Big Bang theory. A scientist can argue that the universe obtained its current state by expanding from a previous state whereby it was a hot and dense singularity. Okay, so we are still in our comfort zone intellectually, but what about when you keep going back? Then we get claims like, "Well, prior to time, energy and matter existed in some form that we can't describe." Then you are faced with the same problem that you claim we face with God; no cognitive content. Just a theory that we can utter in a sentence, but can't exhaust with any sort of positive definition or quality.
Discussions of first principles will necessarily take us out of our comfort zone and everything we thought could be adequate tools for making sense of things end up being of no use to us.
That is the point that I was making. We are limited to what we can understand because we are finite beings existing in a physical universe.
The calculator, so to speak, understands the concepts involved. The calculator understands, for lack of a better term, that obtaining the value of a number to a certain power involves multiplying the number against itself a set number of times. No conceptual difficulty arises, only computational difficulties due to the data capacity of its memory banks, the speed of its processor, and the overall power draw from the battery. As I said, this does not represent a valid analogy for the situation where humans encounter negative theology. Humans and calculators may share the inability to compute certain equations, but that has no relevance to the discussion. Your analogy fails because the set of inputs do not have analogous features. Please do not make me repeat myself again.
I understood your rebuttal perfectly well. I rejected it. Without cognitive content, there is nothing to accept—acceptance requires content to accept. You cannot believe what you cannot think. I don't know how I can make it any simpler for you to understand.
Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!
And I'm arguing to you that our inability to formulate a mental image of a being that is neither temporal nor spatial is not a conceptual difficulty. It's a COMPUTATIONAL difficulty on our parts. We know what space is and we know what time is and by default, we come to understand the negations. But to predicate that to an actual being is something that we are computationally unable to do because everything that we've ever experienced outside of us is in space and time.
Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that I do not understand you.
The kind of cognitive content you want is something that fits under our categories of understanding. If the universe had a creator, then these categories which we extrapolate from our experience of the universe wouldn't apply to this creator. You are not going to get this cognitive content whether you talk about God or whether you talk about some energy field that existed in some other form.
What you described is a conceptual difficulty. How do I know? Because we have difficulty with the concept—that's what conceptual difficulty means. What part of this do you not understand?
(Edit: Also, the notion of a concept necessarily involves cognitive content. To consider it a concept is to engage in circular reasoning. Nonetheless, if we accept that it has cognitive content for the sake of argument, it is a conceptual difficulty, rather than a computational one.)
X = God according to the tradition of negative theology
(1) Without cognitive content, X is not an idea
(2) X does not have cognitive content
(3) Therefore, X is not an idea (from 1-2)
(4) Humans can believe only ideas
(5) Therefore, humans cannot believe X (from 3-4)
Premise 1 is necessarily true, as just a moment of reflection will make clear. Premise 2 is necessarily true, as demonstrated by Thomas Aquinas' argument that anything you can think is necessarily not God. It follows from this that you cannot affirm any cognitive content you think you have of God as God and be correct. X, then, is necessarily without cognitive content. Premise 3 follows necessarily from premises 1 and 2. Premise 4 is necessarily true, as just a moment of reflection will make clear. The conclusion in 5 necessarily follows premises 3 and 4. All the premises in my argument are true, and no deductive errors occur in my reasoning, so the conclusion follows necessarily. The argument is sound, so the conclusion is, thus, true.
If you change the variable X to refer to talk about what came before the big bang and conclude that it does not have cognitive content, that any talk of it will not actually mean anything beyond gibberish or the talk itself will be of something else other than X. We necessarily cannot believe X if you are right about it lacking cognitive content. The conclusion necessarily follows.
You keep trying to argue on pragmatic grounds: we must cave in eventually because we would be without answers otherwise! Tough luck. The conclusion necessarily follows, so no pragmatic argument will work. My argument renders your argument irrelevant.
Do I need to repeat myself with yet a different set of words, or will you finally give up?
Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!
We don't have difficulty with the concept at all, actually. We simply can't explain the qualitative what-it's-likeness of something that is neither spatial nor temporal.
Okay, you're going to have to define "cognitive content". I was thinking that cognitive content, in accordance with your usage, constituted that which we could formulate a mental image of or explain in positive terms. But apparently, you mean something different. We do have an idea of God; an infinite being.
I'll tell you what I'm arguing if you can define "cognitive content".
EDIT: Actually, I'll tell you what I'm arguing anyway. You appear to be putting this idea of "God" on the hot seat and alleging that this is an idea without content. Throughout the thread, I have been willing to grant you that this idea is not one that we could subsume under our categories of understanding-- our domain of discourse only includes that which we acquire through sensation. As a result, we cannot imagine or even articulate something that is incorporeal other than by speaking in metaphors and/or negative terms.
But this was my point; Have we violated the principle of contradiction? Do we have an idea that is inherently unintelligible, or do we have an idea that we are just unable to understand due to our finite minds? Is the calculator unable to calculate 10,000 to the 10,000th power because that number does not exist, or is the calculator unable to calculate that number because the calculator has a finite memory bank?
No. We have not violated the principle of contradiction. The definition of existence is a state of actualization. Strictly speaking, the definition does not include temporality or spatiality, though our linguistics will force us to write sentences in a certain tense due to our domain of discourse.
Through abstraction, we can formulate an idea of God. No, our categories will not apply to this idea and we will only be able to give negative descriptions. In that sense, it is without cognitive content (if cognitive content is understood as such, though you need to define it for me). But we do have an idea and we can flesh it out, albeit negatively and metaphorically.
That's the crux of my argument.
I just had to point out that natural scientists, like Bob Spence, sit on an intellectual high horse so to speak and act like all of their ideas have cognitive content. My point was that when you get to the ultimate level of explanation, they do not. Even when you talk about randomness at the quantum level, spontaneous generation, the static nature of matter, etc., none of that is something we could flesh out with any sort of cognitive content when we explain things at the ultimate level. How could matter have just always existed? Can you imagine something just having always existed? You can't. Your mind is automatically searching for a beginning in accordance with the patterns of understanding. It is that no-man's land of the understanding that I was talking about. I'm not necessarily saying that I know the theory is false, but the idea of anything being without beginning and without end is something we cannot articulate clearly-- whether it's matter, a regress, a being... or whether you believe that scientific laws, energy, etc. all existed in some other form. At this point, we are all making a leap of faith.
That's a very poor analogy, since "10,000 to the 10,000th power" is not different in category or composition from "10 to the 10th power", which can usually be handled. Nothing is being "transcended" here - a simple increase in magnitude or scale is exactly the sort of thing we can imagine, and is consistent with many concepts of God(s).
These were often based on human authority figures 'writ large', with the attributes of strength, knowledge and power much greater, and often indefinitely greater than that of a mortal human. I thing 'indefinitely' captures the way such powers would have been conceived of, rather than 'infinite'. IOW, larger than any mortal, with no defined upper limit.
Why keep bringing this up? It is manifestly an absurd concept, and I don't think anyone here, including yourself, actually would even try to assert that "something could give existence to itself". The real contemporary concept is about the idea of something coming into existence spontaneously, which does not entail it somehow being its own cause. That idea is part of an ancient way of thinking about objects and beings which belongs on the garbage heap of philosophy.
When we speak of something coming into existence, there is an important distinction to be made - one is the matter/energy of which it is formed. Do we imagine that its 'substance' come into existence with it, or did it incorporate pre-existing matter/energy? The first idea raises difficulties with physical laws, the second does not, in fact we see it happening all the time.
So the issue is with matter/energy spontaneously emerging from 'nothing'. But conceptually, we have no problem with what that would look like, only with the idea of an 'uncaused' effect.
"that means that we believe in nothing" is a pure non-sequiter. I don't think anyone here would say we 'believe in nothing', but the incoherence and/or intrinsically undefinable and unpredictable nature of 'being who transcends space and time' means that it is a futile direction of speculation, so we certainly do not 'believe' in something like that.
Which is not what we are trying to do, of course.
Something from 'nothing' may be legitimately called illogical, since 'from' implies a cause, a source.
Whereas spontaneous emergence is not - in fact by strict logic, every particle of matter either had to have existed forever or come into existence.
The argument is about 'spontaneous', which implies no prior cause. Quantum theory and experiments do seem to imply there is some fundamental aspect of 'reality' that does ilook like pure randomness, ie events at a extremely tiny scale of size and energy are inherently 'fuzzy', only describable in probabilstic terms. This seems to be related to a basic 'granularity' of nature, that it does not have 'infinite' precision, in turn related to the idea that a finite volume of space contains a finite amount of information.
This randomness at the Planck scale has a very small but finite probability of manifesting at the 'macro' level of our experience, allowing for the non-zero probability of a macro scale objetc suddenly appearing. Of course this would have an incredibly small probability, and there would be an even massively tinier probability that it would be a well-formed familiar object.
All of this has been developed by mathematical analysis from well-established observations, so is by definition logical.
Some theorists think that there may be some 'deeper' structure which would remove this apparent randomness, but for the moment, introducing this fundamental fuzziness, which brings along with it the concept of events at the smallest scale being essentially uncaused in the way we intuitively think, needs to be recognised as a basic aspect of reality along with matter and energy.
As for the 'logic' of a 'supreme intelligent being' as the origin of 'something', that brings in another primitive intuition which has also been shown to be not valid, that a 'cause' needs to be greater in some sense than what it 'causes'. Once you appreciate this, then even infinite regressions of cause-effect do not necessitate actual infinities of time or energy, thus removing the 'need' for an ultimate infinite or near-infinite being to terminate the imagined ever growing regression of ever-greater 'causes'.
Some apologeticists have tried to justify the 'intelligent' aspect as following from the idea that 'free will' is the only way something could happen at an arbitrary time in an infinite span, on the assumption that if all the physical pre-conditions for an event are present, then that event must happen immediately. Quantum uncertainty removes that argument, since if the pre-conditions are very slightly less than needed to trigger the event, it may occur at any arbitrary point in time, like the decay of radioactive atomic nucleii.
I hope you can grasp some hint of why I see your ideas as so rooted in long superseded ideas and insights, not recognising the many new insights we now have gained, many stimulated by broader contemplation of the many counter-intuitive revelations stemming from the honest desire to winkle out the 'truth' behind all we are confronted with, untrammelled by old ideas and beliefs.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I'm just glad you found out how to separate quotes from your actual message.
Now if only regular members could delete their own posts when they make those kinds of typos.
We were very, very young. We talked about God a lot, and we both enjoyed those discussions. Neither of us got angry at the other, and we found it easy to respect each other. She was pre-med, and I was physics.
Somehow, we both neglected to discuss what to do if we had a child. And then we had a child.
Suddenly her faith, and my lack of faith, mattered.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Nothing to do with 'finding out how to separate quotes'.
I had been saving the whole text in a separate editor in case I lost all the work by hitting the wrong key or a glitch in my browser. I inadvertantly re-inserted the whole of my previous save whereas I just intended to paste another quote expression, but it wasn't apparent within the edit window, so I didn't realize I had stuffed it up until I looked at it in the forum. Quickest fix was to delete it and start a new post based on what I had saved.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I can and logic can because god surprise surprise contains attributes that contradict themselves and if you postulate some of them for true god becomes disprove because He violates has own axioms or similar violations can be deduced. So the axiom that god is sane is incorrect postulating a infinitely insane and infinitely powerful god is not a contradiction however I don’t think there is one person that would name a infinitely insane creature god or worship it so if you are not postulating this your god concept is disprove or can you tell me how can you worship a infinitely insane creature or do you need to be insane to worship a infinitely insane creature. Therefore the standard god concept contradicts itself with a 101% certainty you simply have described this creature with self-contradiction attributes therefore its impossible according to logic.
God contradicts his own axioms therefore he can not be.
We have suggestions and your appeal to ignorance is seriously wrong “O O I’m to ignorant to comprehend Newtonian space time and gravity so I’m going to assume that my explanation of god holding the planets in orbit is equally likeable like thus confusing lows of physic from Newton ”
And can you provide one evidence for god ? And define “ create “ would planets assembling themselves do to gravity count for create or how about abiogenists or evolution you are going to define create here.
Now you boy committed a logical fallacy appeal to ignorance and you are telling me that our logical admission of lack of evidence and proposing some hypothetic is illogical ? Prove it in a nice 1) 2) 3) fashion. However someone who commits logical fallacies can not do this.
Maybe you get this dick out of your mouth while talking OK ! Evidence for universe touched something any thing in the world this is evidence for universe. Evidence for god ? I’m waiting . Zero and naming universe god dose not count.
Burdon of proof Burdon of proof Burdon of proof that’s why the atheist position is rational and your only a delusion provide evidence for god provide evidence for god.
Well since I’m Gnostic atheist contrary to most of the agnostic atheist here I have never denied that I KNOW god is nonexistent ! You simply never asked me.
Don’t you feel retarded for being so dam stupid I know for 101% god can not exist. I have stated this multiple times on thus forums you simply never asked.
Provide the exact height and mass of your god + give the exact specification of atoms he is composed of. Or did you just make this up ? Natural means he must be made of atoms and therefore can not be all powerful giving him a finite amount of powers and mortality congratulations for self disproving your god. Or did you talk out of your ass and made shit up ?
Nothing natural could survive in the conditions of the big bang congratulations on another self contradiction and making more stuff up.
Nothing natural could survive in the conditions of the big bang congratulations on another self contradiction and making more stuff up. I’m powerful enough to create a bomb however I will not survive the explosion of this bomb.
So god can be infinitely insane and evil ? I’m confused because if you say your definition is flexible it supposed to include a infinitely evil god however if you say NO then you are assuming that god is your specific concept of god.
Translation” my god will die there is no heaven or its finite”. O I’m sorry I assumed you understood what we discussed here he referred to the immortality and everlastingness of heaven and/or god.
Translation "I don’t understand logic or the testing of logical consequences and I’m naming a method of logical (attempted proof for wolf )proof a logical fallacy". There is a 99% possibility that wolf don’t understand what the hell he is talking about .
Define “ create “ would planets assembling themselves do to gravity count for create or how about abiogenists or evolution you are going to define create here.
Gravity creates planets therefore for wolf gravity is sentient congratulations of a complete absurdity.
Translation : wolf is full of shit and doesn’t understand evolution because evolution is the adapting to the surroundings not the other way around so there can not be a universe pre made for evolution. Nice way of self humiliating yourself about not understanding evolution.
Wait a second didn’t you assume a few sentences before that everything needs to have a evolution ready universe for itself so how the fuck did this powerful being get this evolution ready universe to evolve ? Nice way of contradicting yourself boy.
Science is a processes of per revived reputable evidence or basing itself on that evidence , mysticism is a religion and this just shows how insane you are naming religion science and science mysticism/religion.
God doesn't have to be anything. That's the point, you're putting your faith in it. patcleaver accused me earlier of having no imagination. Yet you atheists are the ones who won't accept something unless it's shoved right in front of your face..
Evidence evidence evidence if you don’t have them stop making stuff up and we don’t accept fantasies.
contradiction after contradiction especially assuming that a natural god can survive the big bang.
And created by who another god ? You are running a infinite regrets problem and a cretin razor of mr.O dictates that this god part be abandoned here.
Warning I’m not a native English speaker.
http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download