You know God exists. Now thats either true or its not. Your opinion matters.

smacl · 16-12-2019 12:55pm

Midster wrote: »

A being that rolls a trillion, million sided dice knowing that the odds are in his favour that life will begin somewhere in what what is now a vast universe.

Maybe one that requires no thanks, praise or churches.

Instead one that only requires life to spread and populate.

Why one, why he, why not many? Where did he / she / it / they come from? Basically once you have any creation myth that involves a 3rd party you're not actually answering the problem of creation you're just kicking the can down the road and resorting to another form of mysticism.

My take on things is that it is more sensible to simply admit to not knowing the answer rather than shoehorn in some invented one.

antiskeptic · 16-12-2019 5:52pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If what we do is not our choice then we do not do it willingly. You distinction between "choice" and "will" is meaningless, the same problem arises.

A will act IS willingly. In the face of the option for the will to do nothing. In the face of a will-restraining force having to be broken free from.

Absolutely willingly

There is no force that can move a person from having being placed in truth by someone else. There is no force that can break shackles of truth which hold a person in that place. And there is no force that can set a persons mind and body towards pursuits that serve evil interests.

Other than the persons own will. The will is the seat of a man. The high throne on which each man sits.

The will might only be able to operate one way when it acts. But if it is not forced to act, indeed, if it is restrained from acting, yet wills to break the constraint and act in the opposite direction

Will-ingly. Arising from the will. This automatically excludes something done unwillingly or done in the absence of will involvement.

The will is defined thus. Each man's head honcho.

If we are aware of the only two possible outcomes, and if it is only our action or inaction that decides between them then it is by our choice that one specifically happens. So, again, to repeat, ad nauseum, there is no distinction between "will to" and "choose".

If you want to argue that:

- no will action (which doesn't take any act of will to come about) is one half of a potential 'choice'

- the other (potential) 'choice' option is achieved by act of will

...then be my guest.

We can define 'choice, in that way for the purposes of our discussion. If you don't like choice being defined so, then that's okay too. We will call the 'two options/one will act' mechanism presented in this theology 'zog' from now on.

You chose which word is used. I don't mind which it is, it's what lies behind it which is the important bit.

[Granted, normally we think of consequences being obtained because we opt, by act of will, for those consequences. The way I am describing sees consequences obtained by will not-acting

Like a light switch in the 'on' position offering us two options dependent on one act of will. Do nothing and remain in the light ... or will for the dark.

The truth God presents us is the "light". And we will it off. There is nothing unusual about this - we are addicts to sin and all it offers us. Light shines into all of that. It would seem to want to take our drug away. We don't hate it totally, most of us in any case. We appreciate bravery, selflessness, generosity. But we don't love it either, for we are cowardly, selfish and stingy too.

Trouble is, we usually calibrate our position on the good/bad scale against other sinners! You might appreciate how circular that particular measuring method is!

Someone else had something to say about where we score. Only thing matters is .. is He Objective?

19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed."

So, Jesus places us far further down the scale than we might have thought. If not too bad compared to folk around us.

And then, if our ability to choose is restricted by god blinding us to the choice,

Er.. sin blinds us alright. But not to the options.

We have awareness regarding both options we can obtain. We know what good is. And we know what evil is. And we know when we do good and when we do evil.

And we know that knowledge of good and evil is no small thing. Our society is shaped and held together by our knowing it. Dawkins says it is universal and strikingly similar amongst all mankind. No reason to think it ever was other than universal or ever will be. The law if our lands assumes we know what's right and wrong - ignorance as to the precise letter of it, being no defence under law.

Blind to God. Blind to the fact that good and bad are referenced against God - Most Certainly. But not blind to the good/bad options presented to us. Presented as they are in a million subtle and not at all so subtle ways. All. Day. Long.

and we can only choose one of the possibilities

Per above, zog says will for only one possibility

Like a light switch in the on position offering us two options depending on one act of will.

if god chooses to "open our eyes", then that choice is not a free choice.

God choosing to open our eyes or not is based on a criterion first met, or not met, by us.

Whether it is met or not depends utterly upon what our will does and doesn't do. The doesn't do isn't a doing .. as we have seen.

God's choice? A cop choosing to give a ticket to people caught speeding doesn't render him part of the persons free decision to suppress the truth conveyed to them by the law. He chooses to give the consequence their will opted for.

Try telling a judge your speeding wasn't a free choice just because the cop delivered on the consequences of your speeding

God chooses for us and, as god = omniscient/omnipowerful etc, that choice is 100% arbitrary.

Since:

- criterion satisfied or not is entirely in your hands.

- you will is free to act or not act, such that our final option truly is of our doing (if damnation) or not doing (if salvation)

.. this statement doesn't follow.

Edit. If you are still arguing, at this stage, that man has no choice then remember he has zog. The question is: can a man be condemned for what he did will after been given ample opportunity for the alternative.

Assume a fair judge declaring on what was 'ample'. This demands, of course, that you accept there can be such a thing as a fair judge. The whole point about 'every knee bowing' points to the idea that Empirically Demonstrable Evidencing of a fair Judge will be overwhelming convincing.

If you think the case for a spherical earth is empirically sound, why would you suppose the Creator of the empirical realm, from which we derive our method, can't demonstrate his fairness to your utter satisfaction?

.."and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord". Lord over us in every way, including fair and impartial Lord Chief Justice.

Even the Lord Chief Justices of our world will be bow to that fact.

antiskeptic · 16-12-2019 10:22pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Are you really trying to argue that two antonyms mean the same thing..

..You have reduced yourself to questioning the meaning of words in dictionary

A word in a dictionary doesn't suppose to trace things back to start. Take the following dictionary definitions:

A fact is something proven.

A proof is demonstrating by evidence or argument.

Evidence is the available body of facts.

Kind of circular isn't it? No problem though - if we are not looking at the Start but were assuming a Start to provide a certain platform we can push off from. A bubble to work within.

But we're looking at things outside the bubble. Once outside:

I start with the lone view, I am. There is no other place to start.

Whatever conclusions I come to about an outside environment (its existence in the first place and anything descriptive thereafter, by whatever means that description is arrived at) are subjective.

I cannot start with 'we' since I must first decide there is a 'we'.

-

As I said, these definitions, though handy, only function once there is an agreed platform to stand on. You might speak to me about up/down. Up and down are defined. But if joining me on the space station, such definitions won't fit anymore. We are outside the up/down bubble.

It really depends on whether you are speaking about the position inside or outside a bubble. These definitions.

And in the discussion 'we' can switch inside to discuss outside the bubble. At least I think we can, because I assume I am right about there being other I's like I.

antiskeptic · 17-12-2019 2:50am

smacl wrote: »

Why one, why he, why not many? Where did he / she / it / they come from? Basically once you have any creation myth that involves a 3rd party you're not actually answering the problem of creation you're just kicking the can down the road and resorting to another form of mysticism.

My take on things is that it is more sensible to simply admit to not knowing the answer rather than shoehorn in some invented one.

Do you accept an answer so complete and so monumental can exist that renders 'I am' convincing enough?

'Convincing' in the sense that the question 'Yes, but who created you?' would strike you as the most insanely bizarre thought that had ever crossed your mind up to that point.

Mark Hamill · 17-12-2019 10:26am

antiskeptic wrote: »

A will act IS willingly.

Willingly means by free choice. If a will act means willingly, then you are contradicting yourself by saying it is not also an act of choice.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Blind to God. Blind to the fact that good and bad are referenced against God - Most Certainly. But not blind to the good/bad options presented to us. Presented as they are in a million subtle and not at all so subtle ways. All. Day. Long.

So we are not blinded by god to the earthly outcomes of our actions, we are only blinded by god to god being behind them? But that blinding is by no action of our own (we are born blind and must have our "eyes opened" by god) and we are ultimately punished based on whether or not we are blind. So the difference is semantic, but doesn't change the argument. God is blinding us by his own choice and punishing us for his choice to not "open our eyes". You are spending a lot of time supporting my argument.

antiskeptic wrote: »

God choosing to open our eyes or not is based on a criterion first met, or not met, by us.

Whether it is met or not depends utterly upon what our will does and doesn't do. The doesn't do isn't a doing .. as we have seen.

God's choice? A cop choosing to give a ticket to people caught speeding doesn't render him part of the persons free decision to suppress the truth conveyed to them by the law. He chooses to give the consequence their will opted for.

Try telling a judge your speeding wasn't a free choice just because the cop delivered on the consequences of your speeding

Except that this is a judge, cop and a law that purposefully keeps you blind to all of them and then punishes you based purely on if they don't make themselves known.

You are saying that we must not will against god in order for god to open our eyes. But this is just another way of saying that we must (passively) accept god in order for him to open our eyes. Which means that we must believe in god without evidence in order for god to give us the real evidence (open our eyes) to really believe in him.
Didn't you spend a long time trying to claim this wasn't the case, that we could get evidence first and then belief? I guess the mystery of why you couldn't supply even one example of that evidence is solved.

Mark Hamill · 17-12-2019 10:31am

antiskeptic wrote: »

A word in a dictionary doesn't suppose to trace things back to start. Take the following dictionary definitions:

A fact is something proven.

A proof is demonstrating by evidence or argument.

Evidence is the available body of facts.

Kind of circular isn't it? No problem though - if we are not looking at the Start but were assuming a Start to provide a certain platform we can push off from. A bubble to work within.

But we're looking at things outside the bubble. Once outside:

I start with the lone view, I am. There is no other place to start.

Whatever conclusions I come to about an outside environment (its existence in the first place and anything descriptive thereafter, by whatever means that description is arrived at) are subjective.

I cannot start with 'we' since I must first decide there is a 'we'.

-

As I said, these definitions, though handy, only function once there is an agreed platform to stand on. You might speak to me about up/down. Up and down are defined. But if joining me on the space station, such definitions won't fit anymore. We are outside the up/down bubble.

It really depends on whether you are speaking about the position inside or outside a bubble. These definitions.

And in the discussion 'we' can switch inside to discuss outside the bubble. At least I think we can, because I assume I am right about there being other I's like I.

Now now, I don't see any definitions for any of these words, so how can we discuss any of them? You start with "A" (with a capital "A"), but how can we get anywhere if you don't even differentiate "A" (with a capital "A") with "a" (with a small "a"). And next you have "word" and then "in" ...
Look, we are now a whole day closer to the heat death of the universe, you really need to get started on your personal redefinition or every word in existence if you want to get anywhere.

Zubeneschamali · 17-12-2019 10:34am

antiskeptic wrote: »

Do you accept an answer so complete and so monumental can exist that renders 'I am' convincing enough?

This thread reminds me of an early computer program called ELIZA which sometimes kind of looked as if it was keeping up a conversation by trotting out stock responses and word salad.

...and of course, it turns out ELIZA is alive and well!

Mark Hamill · 17-12-2019 10:43am

Midster wrote: »

But doesn’t it still keep the door open for some kind of creator?

It amazes me how theists of all sorts don't understand how doors work. I, for instance, don't leave my front door open open because of the possibility that someone might come knocking. Who knows what will come in if I leave it open (never mind letting all the heat out)? Better to close the door and return to open it if someone evidences that they are looking to get in and entitled to do so.

Midster wrote: »

Not a creator that anyone on earth has ever seen, written about, or spoken to. And definitely not one that boasted creating everything in just seven days.

But one that every being on earth and every complicated life form in the universe has always felt, but failed to describe accurately.

A being that rolls a trillion, million sided dice knowing that the odds are in his favour that life will begin somewhere in what what is now a vast universe.

Maybe one that requires no thanks, praise or churches.

Instead one that only requires life to spread and populate.

You see? You start with the simplistic, almost reasonable, "just leave the door open to some sort of a creator", but then start tacking on whatever flavours you personally like and which suit you and expect everyone else to sit there happily, heat bellowing out the open door, waiting for your desired creator to make themselves known.

Recognising a technical possibility is not the same thing as leaving the door open to it. In theistic discussion, it is always used as an infiltration to insert your desired deity into our incomplete understanding of the universe (argument from ignorance). There is as much support for me claiming that I created the universe, but are you really "leaving the door open" that I could be the creator?

spacecoyote · 17-12-2019 11:02am

Midster wrote: »

But doesn’t it still keep the door open for some kind of creator?

Not a creator that anyone on earth has ever seen, written about, or spoken to. And definitely not one that boasted creating everything in just seven days.

But one that every being on earth and every complicated life form in the universe has always felt, but failed to describe accurately.

A being that rolls a trillion, million sided dice knowing that the odds are in his favour that life will begin somewhere in what what is now a vast universe.

Maybe one that requires no thanks, praise or churches.

Instead one that only requires life to spread and populate.

I’m done, time for a coffee

So, if there has to be a creator of the universe, who created the creator. And who created the creator of the creator, and on & on ad infinitum.

I just find the argument for a creator god depressingly small.

So you can accept that some mystical being, that can never be evidenced has just always been there, but can't accept that the universe in some form has, even though we live in it, and science allows us to learn more fact based information about it on nearly a daily basis

antiskeptic · 17-12-2019 11:24am

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This thread reminds me of an early computer program called ELIZA which sometimes kind of looked as if it was keeping up a conversation by trotting out stock responses and word salad.

...and of course, it turns out ELIZA is alive and well!

Pretty much stock yourself. Deserving of the old stock 'asserted without evidence, dismissed without evidence' response beloved of this forum!

antiskeptic · 17-12-2019 11:54am

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Now now, I don't see any definitions for any of these words, so how can we discuss any of them? You start with "A" (with a capital "A"), but how can we get anywhere if you don't even differentiate "A" (with a capital "A") with "a" (with a small "a"). And next you have "word" and then "in" ...
Look, we are now a whole day closer to the heat death of the universe, you really need to get started on your personal redefinition or every word in existence if you want to get anywhere.

2nd last paragraph of the post is for you. You can either remain in the bubble and define in a circle. Or seek to break out of the bubble and see where the definitions might terminate.

Copied from the post below

Edit: 'will' is another example of defintions requiring digging into. The definition of will refers to a philosophy concerning will. The definition isn't true as such.

You can discuss those philosophies (as we are doing now). The only contention regarding defintions are the words under discussion: choice, will, objective, subjective. Other than that, words used to discuss these contentious words have their normal understanding.

That is how new words are created and defined - by using agreed on words.

antiskeptic · 17-12-2019 12:39pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Willingly means by free choice. If a will act means willingly, then you are contradicting yourself by saying it is not also an act of choice.

Willingly means arising from the will. Which naturally means free (since if not from the will then from somewhere else and not thus arising from the will)

I'm not so sure about choice - if you are demanding that choice is defined by will act free both for and against. We have two different philosopies of will thus

Free willingly (my philosophy: the will freely against or doing nothing).

Free choice (classic philosophy: the will freely for or freely against)

You might clarify which we are talking about?

Edit: 'will' is another example of defintions requiring digging into. The definition of will refers to a philosophy concerning will. The definition isn't true as such.

You can discuss those philosophies (as we are doing now). The only contention regarding defintions are the words under discussion: choice, will, objective, subjective. Other than that, words used to discuss these contentious words have their normal understanding.

That is how new words are created and defined - by using agreed on words.

antiskeptic · 17-12-2019 1:53pm

spacecoyote wrote: »

So, if there has to be a creator of the universe, who created the creator. And who created the creator of the creator, and on & on ad infinitum.

I just find the argument for a creator god depressingly small.

So you can accept that some mystical being, that can never be evidenced has just always been there, but can't accept that the universe in some form has, even though we live in it, and science allows us to learn more fact based information about it on nearly a daily basis

A Creator doesn't require a Creator. It need only always have been/is/will be and whatever other realms it need occupy.

Could all (putting an unbelievers hat on for a moment) we observe arise without God? I don't see why it is impossible since we don't know what can and can't be. One thing is sure, the Creator is whatever it is.

As to which possibility is preferred?

Whatever floats your boat, I suppose. We can 'why my boat floats best' til the cows come home, it doesn't change the conclusion.

Or the fact it is your own personal conclusion. So that man is without excuse in the event he feels he is in serious need of one.

They can hardly turn to 'goddidit'.

antiskeptic · 17-12-2019 2:19pm

It is fascinating to see the resistance to the idea of self sitting on the throne. Self the ultimate authority, will, self assessment, lone view, our being subjective doesn't necessarily mean we are in error, etc.

All discussed. Lots of resistance to the self on throne observation.

We know in our heart of hearts that we sit on the throne. So why would someone who knows they sit on the throne, have such difficulty in admitting it?

Self on throne, whether we decide true or not, does mean self is responsible. Is that what is being avoided? Responsibility?

If so, what are we seeking to avoid responsibility FOR?

Mark Hamill · 17-12-2019 2:32pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

2nd last paragraph of the post is for you. You can either remain in the bubble and define in a circle. Or seek to break out of the bubble and see where the definitions might terminate.

Copied from the post below

Subjective and objective are antonyms.
So, if you want to describe something that is not defined by these words, then you need to use a different word that actually describes what you want to describe. You do not get to redefine two opposite meaning words to the same meaning in order to suit your argument.

antiskeptic · 17-12-2019 2:41pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Subjective and objective are antonyms.

According to a particular philosopy.

Definitions are circular like I say (because philosophies are cicular). You can't hide behind a circular argument.

Huntergonzo · 17-12-2019 2:42pm

Again I think people should really keep their imaginary friends to themselves but alas this has never been the religious way.

There have been hundreds if not thousands of gods in documented human history, and everybody seems to think there's is the coolest.

So which god is the real one, and how do we prove his existence?

Mark Hamill · 17-12-2019 2:44pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Willingly means arising from the will. Which naturally means free (since if not from the will then from somewhere else and not thus arising from the will)

I'm not so sure about choice - if you are demanding that choice is defined by will act free both for and against. We have two different philosopies of will thus

Free willingly (my philosophy: the will freely against or doing nothing).

Free choice (classic philosophy: the will freely for or freely against)

You might clarify which we are talking about?

Edit: 'will' is another example of defintions requiring digging into. The definition of will refers to a philosophy concerning will. The definition isn't true as such.

You can discuss those philosophies (as we are doing now). The only contention regarding defintions are the words under discussion: choice, will, objective, subjective. Other than that, words used to discuss these contentious words have their normal understanding.

That is how new words are created and defined - by using agreed on words.

Nope, "will" and "willingly" and "choice" do not require us to delve into their definitions as they are already clearly defined. Do you think this isn't transparent? Every time it is pointed out how your claims contradict themselves you bring in a new term to redefine and try and obfuscate things, but it always circles back to the same problem:

-Ultimately, we can only make a fully informed decision re: accepting god after god "opens" our eyes.
-Anything we do before then is not fully informed because our "eyes" aren't opened to God.
-If we are expected to make such a decision beforehand, then we are expected to (at least in some way) believe in god without evidence (something you were adamant wasn't the case).
-If we can only make the decision afterwards then any reward or punishment is ultimately because of gods actions (seeing as it is god who decides when, or even if, our "eyes" get opened). God is not restricted to anything (not even to our good and bad actions, according to your earlier posts) therefore gods choice is 100% arbitrary.

Can you contradict this without redefining the English language? Because I'm done following you down that rabbit hole.

antiskeptic · 17-12-2019 2:49pm

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Again I think people should really keep their imaginary friends to themselves but alas this has never been the religious way.

There have been hundreds if not thousands of gods in documented human history, and everybody seems to think there's is the coolest.

So which god is the real one, and how do we prove his existence?

You don't prove it. You worship it. Even you your god.

After that what will be will be.

Huntergonzo · 17-12-2019 2:54pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Nope, "will" and "willingly" and "choice" do not require us to delve into their definitions as they are already clearly defined. Do you think this isn't transparent? Every time it is pointed out how your claims contradict themselves you bring in a new term to redefine and try and obfuscate things, but it always circles back to the same problem:

-Ultimately, we can only make a fully informed decision re: accepting god after god "opens" our eyes.
-Anything we do before then is not fully informed because our "eyes" aren't opened to God.
-If we are expected to make such a decision beforehand, then we are expected to (at least in some way) believe in god without evidence (something you were adamant wasn't the case).
-If we can only make the decision afterwards then any reward or punishment is ultimately because of gods actions (seeing as it is god who decides when, or even if, our "eyes" get opened). God is not restricted to anything (not even to our good and bad actions, according to your earlier posts) therefore gods choice is 100% arbitrary.

Can you contradict this without redefining the English language? Because I'm done following you down that rabbit hole.

In fairness the words contradict, redefine and obfuscate sum up religion very well. You can also throw in there vague, mysterious, authoritarian and cover up.

The Catholic Cult should never be forgiven nor forgotten for the horrific crimes they committed in this country.

Mark Hamill · 17-12-2019 2:58pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

According to a particular philosopy.

Definitions are circular like I say (because philosophies are cicular). You can't hide behind a circular argument.

Nope, according to the dictionary, they are antonyms. It is not circular to state that opposite meaning words have opposite meanings.

antiskeptic · 17-12-2019 3:01pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Nope, "will" and "willingly" and "choice" do not require us to delve into their definitions as they are already clearly defined. Do you think this isn't transparent? Every time it is pointed out how your claims contradict themselves you bring in a new term to redefine and try and obfuscate things, but it always circles back to the same problem:

Philosopy determines definitions. When discussing a particular philosophy (mine) you go with my definitions.

You don't prove philosophies, you decide upon them.

-Ultimately, we can only make a fully informed decision re: accepting god after god "opens" our eyes.

In the mean time we get to decide upon our response to truth. If truth is God then..

-Anything we do before then is not fully informed because our "eyes" aren't opened to God.

If God is truth, love, joy, peace, life.. and we have decided our attitude to these things (with our responses to truth telling about the worth of these thungs), then..

We don't need to be fully informed. We choose all the time without being fully informed. We need to be adequately informed.

-If we are expected to make such a decision beforehand, then we are expected to (at least in some way) believe in god without evidence (something you were adamant wasn't the case).

See adequacy above

-If we can only make the decision afterwards then any reward or punishment is ultimately because of gods actions (seeing as it is god who decides when, or even if, our "eyes" get opened).

See adequacy. If we are adequately equipped to fulfill the criterion or not.

God is not restricted to anything (not even to our good and bad actions, according to your earlier posts) therefore gods choice is 100% arbitrary.

God is restricted. I nevee said he wasn't in any case. There are things he cannot do. Like make us the criterion deciders and make him the criterion deciders at the same time. He can make us the criterion deciders alright

Can you contradict this without redefining the English language? Because I'm done following you down that rabbit hole.

Adequately informed seems the phrase most important to this response of mine.

Huntergonzo · 17-12-2019 3:01pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

You don't prove it. You worship it. Even you your god.

After that what will be will be.

Haha I see.

What if I told you I am god, would you believe me? I mean there's no reason not to in fairness, afterall you don't prove things, you just worship.

Be very careful what you say now, I could be on here testing your faith, you don't want to be another doubting Thomas!

antiskeptic · 17-12-2019 3:31pm

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Haha I see.

What if I told you I am god, would you believe me? I mean there's no reason not to in fairness, afterall you don't prove things, you just worship.

Be very careful what you say now, I could be on here testing your faith, you don't want to be another doubting Thomas!

It doesn't matter what I believe. It is what you believe that matters. For what you believe is what you hold prime. That's all worship is.

spacecoyote · 17-12-2019 3:37pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

A Creator doesn't require a Creator. It need only always have been/is/will be and whatever other realms it need occupy.

Could all (putting an unbelievers hat on for a moment) we observe arise without God? I don't see why it is impossible since we don't know what can and can't be. One thing is sure, the Creator is whatever it is.

As to which possibility is preferred?

Whatever floats your boat, I suppose. We can 'why my boat floats best' til the cows come home, it doesn't change the conclusion.

Or the fact it is your own personal conclusion. So that man is without excuse in the event he feels he is in serious need of one.

They can hardly turn to 'goddidit'.

I'm a creator, who required a creator.

My parents created me. If I have kids, I've created them. So the first point you make is just an absurdity. Or is it, every creator needs a creator except your creator?

So "the" creator doesn't require a creator, but the universe does?

Huntergonzo · 17-12-2019 3:38pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

It doesn't matter what I believe. It is what you believe that matters. For what you believe is what you hold prime. That's all worship is.

Which god do you worship as a matter of interest?

Eg: Thor, Zeus, Allah, Catholic god? Jew god? Jesus? Etc

antiskeptic · 17-12-2019 3:49pm

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Which god do you worship as a matter of interest?

Eg: Thor, Zeus, Allah, Catholic god? Jew god? Jesus? Etc

God of the bible (as I interpret it) appears to me to be the best fit.

antiskeptic · 17-12-2019 3:50pm

spacecoyote wrote: »

I'm a creator, who required a creator.

My parents created me. If I have kids, I've created them. So the first point you make is just an absurdity. Or is it, every creator needs a creator except your creator?

So "the" creator doesn't require a creator, but the universe does?

I allowed for there being a Creator that isn't a god. Big bang or a perpetual multiverse or whatever.

spacecoyote · 17-12-2019 4:06pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

I allowed for there being a Creator that isn't a god. Big bang or a perpetual multiverse or whatever.

That still doesn't answer the question of who created this creator, or why they don't need a creator

Huntergonzo · 17-12-2019 4:25pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

God of the bible (as I interpret it) appears to me to be the best fit.

That's fair enough, you're entitled to believe whatever you wish.

I think the god/religion people choose/chose to believe in has more to do with where/when they were born than anything else.

For instance if you were born in Irish in modern times you're likely to be catholic (at least for a few years anyway, huge drop off in recent years), if you born in Saudi Arabia you'd most likely be Muslim, if you were born in Israel you'd likely be jewish if you were born in ancient Greece you'd likely believe in Zeus etc etc

More than just coincidental that I'd say.

You know God exists. Now thats either true or its not. Your opinion matters.

Comments