I don't consider an awareness of God special.
It is available to everyone.
It is available to everyone.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Atheism is a or is a product of mental illness...
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
God's nature is not an intention driven nature.
That would be like saying "Nature has an intention."
It is all God's nature, not a separate intention that human beings experience...
That would be like saying "Nature has an intention."
It is all God's nature, not a separate intention that human beings experience...
Quote from Thunderdog:
Perhaps you'd like to take a moment to debate with yourself on the matter of God's intentions.
For thunderdog. This is the cogent response.
Only dopes say there is no Creator.
Now if you ask why might there be a Creator - well because it a rather reasonable conclusion.
Creation - therefore there may be a Creator.
There is no other more logical conclusion. That does not mean there is a Creator - only that a Creator exists is a reasonable conclusion.
Now again, that is not my argument. My argument has been that it is illogical to say there is no Creator.
I note - you could the universe may have just happened. I agree it may have just happened or it may have been created.
Only dopes say there is no Creator.
Quote from jem:
science does not rule out Creator.
1. Scientific measurement gets cut off a split second after the big bang. That first fraction of second is unknown to science as we know it today.
2. Therefore anyone with a working brain cell realizes science does not speak to the creation of anything prior to that point.
--
[/B]
Now if you ask why might there be a Creator - well because it a rather reasonable conclusion.
Creation - therefore there may be a Creator.
There is no other more logical conclusion. That does not mean there is a Creator - only that a Creator exists is a reasonable conclusion.
Now again, that is not my argument. My argument has been that it is illogical to say there is no Creator.
I note - you could the universe may have just happened. I agree it may have just happened or it may have been created.
Stephen Hawking has said as long as the Universe had a beginning then you could suppose it had a creator.
When discussing science and creation - I prefer to be on the side of scientists.
We also know one of the founders of string theory said the Universe we live in looks designed and that if we can eventually rule out the existence of parallel universes then science would be hard pressed to counter the argument of a designer.
I am not sure how much you anti science atheists need. shall we continue with more quotes from scientists.
When discussing science and creation - I prefer to be on the side of scientists.
We also know one of the founders of string theory said the Universe we live in looks designed and that if we can eventually rule out the existence of parallel universes then science would be hard pressed to counter the argument of a designer.
I am not sure how much you anti science atheists need. shall we continue with more quotes from scientists.
Nice try. Here's the whole passage in actual context:Quote from jem:
Stephen Hawking has said as long as the Universe had a beginning then you could suppose it had a creator...
The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started -- it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator? [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 140-41.]
And then there's this little item:
What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary. [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]
If, if, if...
How scientific...
If fish started smoking Marlboro's, would they get gill cancer?
How scientific...
If fish started smoking Marlboro's, would they get gill cancer?
Quote from Thunderdog:
Nice try. Here's the whole passage in actual context:
The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started -- it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator? [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 140-41.]
And then there's this little item:
What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary. [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]
He doesn't feel silly, he is a scientist.
Scientists dream and have faith in their dreams just like everyone else, even atheists...there is no reason to feel silly for having silly dreams.
However, Hawking's silly dreams themselves are not science. They are nothing but musings of a scientist.
People like you confuse the musings of a scientist with actual science, as these scientists have become your prophet, your shaman, your preacher and your holy father...
Scientists dream and have faith in their dreams just like everyone else, even atheists...there is no reason to feel silly for having silly dreams.
However, Hawking's silly dreams themselves are not science. They are nothing but musings of a scientist.
People like you confuse the musings of a scientist with actual science, as these scientists have become your prophet, your shaman, your preacher and your holy father...
Quote from Thunderdog:
And here you are, putting Hawking in his place. Imagine how silly he must feel.
What Creation?Quote from jem:
Creation - therefore there may be a Creator.
What?! Youâre saying there is no other logical conclusion than the universe was created, but that does not mean there is a Creator?Quote from jem:
There is no other more logical conclusion. That does not mean there is a Creator - only that a Creator exists is a reasonable conclusion.
You are wrong. There is a more logical and reasonable conclusion you are suggesting in all your confusion, and it's of a logically natural creation.
There is another logical and reasonable conclusion that you are a complete pratt.
I notice how you are able to defeat your own arguments easily enough, if nothing else.
Then your argument is totally lame and illogical. Your argument means it is illogical to say there is no Creator which creates Creators, and no Creators which create them too - and so on -ad infinitum.Quote from jem:
Now again, that is not my argument. My argument has been that it is illogical to say there is no Creator.
Your so called argument is witless
Or it may not have been created ...is equally as pointless just to say without reasons . You goomer.Quote from jem:
I note - you could the universe may have just happened. I agree it may have just happened or it may have been created.
Your pointless so called argument explains nothing. It can't even form itself into an argument.
Trying to suggest to the feeble minded like yourself that there could be a Creator, even when there are no signs nor reasons for one is a bit pathetic to say the least.