jesus is god......lmao
- Thread starter Gordon Gekko
- Start date
Just think "Beavis and Butthead" do Christmas....
why does man need to construct a god, then that god makes "everything"?
why not say "everything" always was?
adding god to equation creates more complexity and that is wrong unless very good reason(s) to do so.
[note
ersonal FAITH not good reason]
adding god begs the question: what created god? and so on.. and so on.
you see the logical dilemma?
creationists claim [seeming] intelligent order implies intelligent designer, [logical conclusion, wrong but logical.] intelligent designer is intelligent order too, so the next logical Q is: what designed this designer of the universe? [and so on].
see the logical quandary creationists place themselves in, and they have no good answer to this.
because there is no good answer. they are trapped in a web of internal inconsistency.
:-/
why not say "everything" always was?
adding god to equation creates more complexity and that is wrong unless very good reason(s) to do so.
[note
ersonal FAITH not good reason]adding god begs the question: what created god? and so on.. and so on.
you see the logical dilemma?
creationists claim [seeming] intelligent order implies intelligent designer, [logical conclusion, wrong but logical.] intelligent designer is intelligent order too, so the next logical Q is: what designed this designer of the universe? [and so on].
see the logical quandary creationists place themselves in, and they have no good answer to this.
because there is no good answer. they are trapped in a web of internal inconsistency.
:-/
You can't answer scientifically why man needs to know what his purpose in life is, why he is here, so you discount it. Typical. This is sour grapes.
You can practice your religion of "everything" always was, which is fine by me. However the value judgment position you take on how other people answer that question for themselves indicates a lack of tolerance, understanding, and emotional development on your part.
It is in no way illogical to think of a perfect supreme being, any more than it is illogical to seek perfection in science or any other field of life.
You can practice your religion of "everything" always was, which is fine by me. However the value judgment position you take on how other people answer that question for themselves indicates a lack of tolerance, understanding, and emotional development on your part.
It is in no way illogical to think of a perfect supreme being, any more than it is illogical to seek perfection in science or any other field of life.
Quote from LongShot:
why does man need to construct a god, then that god makes "everything"?
why not say "everything" always was?
adding god to equation creates more complexity and that is wrong unless very good reason(s) to do so.
[note
adding god begs the question: what created god? and so on.. and so on.
you see the logical dilemma?
creationists claim [seemingly] intelligent order implies intelligent designer, [logical conclusion, wrong but logical.] intelligent designer is intelligent order too, so the next logical Q is: what designed this designer of the universe? [and so on].
see the logical quandary creationists place themselves in, and they have no good answer to this.
because there is no good answer. they are trapped in a web of internal inconsistency.
:-/
Yes, there is a reasonable scientific answer: a Creator does not have to have a Creator. Here is my post from p. 21 to GG:
"Scientifically, there does not have to be a Creator of the Creator. As I've stated, it is entirely possible that both time and space were created at the time of the singularity. "Existence" as we know it is a function of time. In other words, if the First Cause exists in 3+ time dimensions, He can exist outside of space/time and never have to be created.
This is entirely possible and has not yet been disproved by science. For example, if String Theory were found to be true and Hawking's Space/Time Theorem of Relativity to apply to the singularity, then all that I said above would hold. The point is this: one cannot even prove that the First Cause must have a First Cause..."
Power of science? You cannot even answer the most basic question with science.
Why are we here?
Why are we here?
So you believe in coincidence, you practice the religion of coincidence. Fine by me. Since you have no proof of that conclusion, only belief, what logical reason do you have to conclude it is so? You could just as easily be guessing wrong.
Quote from LongShot:
oh thats an easy answer: COINCIDENCE
Sheer luck, no purpose just damn luck.