-->
@Vegasgiants
Its called being all powerful.
You know, something which your universe isnt.
How can you explain the existence of everything without God?
Posts
Total:
47
-->
@Best.Korea
Unlike universe, God can actually create himself due to being above the laws of logic.
To believe in a being that can defy the laws of logic is to disregard logic as a limitation of what you believe. There's a word in the dictionary to describe this, it's called irrational.
-->
@Double_R
Its called being all powerful.
-->
@Best.Korea
Like Harry Potter
Magic
-->
@Vegasgiants
No. All powerful means being able to do anything.
Harry Potter wasnt all powerful.
Harry Potter wasnt all powerful.
-->
@Best.Korea
I know. It's magic. Outside the rules of science. Faith based.
You can make up any magical creature you like
-->
@Vegasgiants
Exactly.
-->
@Sidewalker
The originating question is not valid, you don't explain existence, existence just is.
The question is valid how do you explain the existence of everything? Everything is a self-evident truth our argument is based on GOD being a self-evident-lie and I will not make that argument at this point.
-->
@Best.Korea
Its called being all powerful.
In fact, all powerful more importantly would mean power obtained without sin, or criminal laws. We might agree it is a power derived by the people as a perfect "Right." All self-evident truth is all powerful and by the way logical.
-->
@Best.Korea
Its called being all powerful.
Even theologians and other religious leaders recognize that "all powerful" does not include the power to defy logic. Again, such an assertion makes your claim irrational by definition.
You don't have to care about that, you can choose to believe in something that makes absolutely no sense if that's what makes you feel good. What you don't get to do is pretend that anyone else should feel compelled to listen to a word you have to say because at that point you've ceded any and all ground to stand on while you criticize another person's position... on anything.
-->
@Double_R
Well, you can be angry all you want. You can choose to only follow logic, which is self-contradicting, since someone needed to create logic in the first place for it to exist. The reasoning itself always leads to absurd infinity, since every reason requiers a reason, which is absurd since there cannot be infinite reasons. Same way, basic laws of logic always require to be accepted without question, for those laws to be applied. You like logic a lot, so I bet you will love even more God, the creator of logic.
No matter how many times that you pose this question or variations of, the burden of proof will always lay with those that make the claim.
This is a self-contradictingstatement that renders itself untrue. The idea that belief in somethingrequires proof is not based on observation or evidence; it is not a logicalconclusion, it is unproven, it is nothing but a dogmatic axiom of faith. Hence it does not meet its own burden of proof.
So, you have checkmated yourself unless (1) You can confirm which god your talking about. (2) You can prove his existence. (3) You can prove where he came from.
This Pavlovian regurgitation betrays total ignorance of the subject matter. The problem with such obdurate and dogmatic closedmindedness is that everything is one dimensional, there's no depth, nothing atall below a surface level understanding of childish literalisms and acting out deeppersonal grievances.
It’s common for young children to see the Bible as a storybook and to have a childish understanding of God as an invisible man in the skythat grants wishes to those who pray. Usually,as children age and mature their conception of God and their understanding offaith develops and matures beyond such childish ways of understanding things.
But that isn’t always the case. There are those whoseconception of God and faith did not mature as they got older and who now spenda lot of time ranting about how much more intelligent, rational, and maturethey are than people of faith because they now reject this childish idea of God.They apparently don’t understand that no adult Theist believes in the God theydon’t believe in and yet, they really seem thrilled with themselves for theirintellectual achievement It just seemsthat they are using the faith discussion to brag about how they are all grownup now and so they don’t believe in the invisible man in the sky anymore, andwhen I read these posts I can’t help but recall the image of a little child Isaw on vacation a few years back who was clinging to the wall of the hotel poolnext to the three foot sign yelling “Mommy, mommy, look at me, I’m in the deepend just like a grown up”. I’m sorry, but this type of religious scholarshitjust doesn’t appear to be all that grown up to me, and clinging to suchchildish ideas about God and faith isn’t what I’d call “deep”.
-->
@Best.Korea
Magic.
Unicorns exist if I say so too
-->
@Best.Korea
basic laws of logic always require to be accepted without question, for those laws to be applied.
Correct, because accepting them is a necessary precondition of intelligible thought.
Logic isn't something that's created, established, or defended, it's the starting point from which all intelligible thought follows. Any attempt to validate logic requires the use of it as well as any attempt to invalidate it, which is exactly what you're trying to do and what makes it so ironic.
When you argue that logic had to be created, you're using logic to make that case. When you argue that logic doesn't always need to apply, you are using logic to make that case. You are using the very thing you are arguing against, that's like demonstrating the uselessness of the tree branch you are sitting on by cutting it off.
So no, I don't love logic. I just recognize the absurdity of pretending there is some other way to form a coherent worldview.
The reasoning itself always leads to absurd infinity, since every reason requiers a reason, which is absurd since there cannot be infinite reasons.
Correct, there cannot be infinite reasons, which is where we get into topics like properly basic beliefs and epistemology more broadly. Let me know when you want to have a real conversation about this and I'll be happy to explain further.
-->
@Double_R
So logic wasnt created?
How come it exists then?
How come it exists then?
Checkmate atheists, again.
-->
@Best.Korea
So let me see if I'm following your position...
Logic exists therefore it was created
God is the only being powerful enough to have created it, therefore God created logic
If God created logic then God can defy logic
If logic can be defied, then it is not always necessary
If it is not always necessary, then it should not always be relied upon.
If it should not always be relied upon, then faith is a reasonable alternative to fill that void
If faith is a reasonable alternative, then one who relies on faith is being reasonable.
Does that about sum it up?
-->
@Double_R
Correct, because accepting them is a necessary precondition of intelligible thought.
The issue here is that Best. Korea’s principle has a logicto it is based on a foundation of a description of insets. Is incest true or is a condition of interpretation. A woman is a mother is the women described as a mother by everyone. Grammar may say no but literal sense may say yes every man many at some point be intimate with their own mother as word without being intimate to a relation made by birth as incest. This connection is made by speaking the truth and speaking the whole truth in faith. In the case of a united state of religion or freedom of religion a person may not know how to best describe their own beliefs in a logical way to others. Not everything is a test of knowledge for those who wish to become part of a religion. The logic in Christianity is aform of mechanism to give a false appearance of incest when such tactics had been undertaking by some cultural societies for whatever reasons.
Our wives as a united state are mothers when she has a child with a husband in the literal sense, she is also that husband’s mother and not just the child’s mother. As truth and whole truth, it just sounds wrong by English grammar. As a man people might be asked is your wife a mother? Yes, without the context to English grammar a woman who is a mother is also the mother to the father of that child. In contradiction to not being the mother of a child, the husband had before the wife had wed him.