Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Universe

1246

Comments

  • #92
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Does a coin counter come into existance by accident? Or is it designed with the purpose of sorting coins?


    I disagree. Simple really. If something happens by chance or without purpose etc, it is an accidental happening.

    Jimi, think about this for a moment. Even those who don't believe in God believe that there are forces or laws at work that mean things don't really happen by accident.

    If a coconut falls from a tree, why does it fall downwards to the ground instead of up to the sky?
    a) God made it fall (intelligent falling)?
    b) It's a pure accident that it falls downwards instead of upwards?
    c) An impersonal force (gravity)?

    So I can see how a non-believer treats natural selection as a law or force, such as Gravity, rather than as something that happens by 'accident'.


  • #93
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    PDN wrote: »
    Jimi, think about this for a moment. Even those who don't believe in God believe that there are forces or laws at work that mean things don't really happen by accident.

    If a coconut falls from a tree, why does it fall downwards to the ground instead of up to the sky?
    a) God made it fall (intelligent falling)?
    b) It's a pure accident that it falls downwards instead of upwards?
    c) An impersonal force (gravity)?

    So I can see how a non-believer treats natural selection as a law or force, such as Gravity, rather than as something that happens by 'accident'.

    Indeed. As you'll see by my previous posts, what I said was that sooner or later it comes back to accidental happening. I.E. The law itself is accidental.

    Like Wicknights Coin counter. Taken in isolation, it just sorts coins. It doesn't think. However, the thought has already gone into designing the device to sort coins. Like I would say, using your example of gravity, it either occured accidentally, or something designed it that way. Gravity in isolation, can be likened to the coin counter. It just happened by accident, or there was some purpose. I've seen it said 'But its not accidental, its what happens when the world spins at such and such and so on'. Then the accident merely shifts further back, to, well it is accident that the world happens to do such and such and so on. Sooner or later it comes down to accidental, or purposeful.

    Its one of the biggies for me. Its what gives me 'knowledge', rather than faith that there is or was a creator. Cause and effect. We see the coin counter in isolation, we know it was caused. Even if we don't know who made it, we know it was made and given a purpose. This whole world is an effect. For me, it is merely a matter of finding the cause.


  • #94
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Not at all. I deliberately decided not to quote my source because what usually happens when I do (and I always do) is the discussion will get dragged down a side road of ad hominine attacks on the character of the quoted. I already admitted that I wasn't a professional physicist so it would be pretty obvious that they were not my words. The thing is the words make sense to the discussion in question and I thought they fit pretty well, and now this thread has gone completely off topic. Can we get back to the Universe please? What about Boarde and Vilenkin’s comments re the beginning of the universe? And how could it have come from nothing?

    We do not yet have a theory of quantum gravity. (Quantum mechanics is a regime where events are not simply caused by prior events or agents.) So we cannot say we know the nature of the 'beginning' of the universe. We therefore cannot say that God must be the cause of the universe.


  • #95
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Indeed. As you'll see by my previous posts, what I said was that sooner or later it comes back to accidental happening. I.E. The law itself is accidental.

    Like Wicknights Coin counter. Taken in isolation, it just sorts coins. It doesn't think. However, the thought has already gone into designing the device to sort coins. Like I would say, using your example of gravity, it either occured accidentally, or something designed it that way. Gravity in isolation, can be likened to the coin counter. It just happened by accident, or there was some purpose. I've seen it said 'But its not accidental, its what happens when the world spins at such and such and so on'. Then the accident merely shifts further back, to, well it is accident that the world happens to do such and such and so on. Sooner or later it comes down to accidental, or purposeful.

    Its one of the biggies for me. Its what gives me 'knowledge', rather than faith that there is or was a creator. Cause and effect. We see the coin counter in isolation, we know it was caused. Even if we don't know who made it, we know it was made and given a purpose. This whole world is an effect. For me, it is merely a matter of finding the cause.

    The universe is not obliged to conform to your personal ideas of 'accident', 'cause', and 'effect'. You can define 'accidental' any way you like (it's beside the point), but you have not shown that the universe must have been caused by God. Laws, such as General Relativity, reveal the causal structure of the universe. But it makes little sense to say that laws themselves are caused. That's like saying 1+1 = 2 must have a cause, or that God must have a cause.


  • #96
    rockbeer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭rockbeer


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Does a coin counter come into existance by accident? Or is it designed with the purpose of sorting coins?

    A very good question. Many forms of sorting device occur naturally. Rivers and oceans, for example, sort and grade minerals very effectively. When you see pebbles of different sizes sorted neatly into strata on a beach, do you think to yourself "ah yes, obviously somebody must have come along and arranged these"?

    Is a river "designed with the purpose of sorting pebbles"?


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Morbert wrote: »
    The universe is not obliged to conform to your personal ideas of 'accident', 'cause', and 'effect'. You can define 'accidental' any way you like (it's beside the point), but you have not shown that the universe must have been caused by God.

    Nor do I intend to show its been caused. My observations and views show 'me' its been caused. Where it leads you is of no consequence to that. You may believe its spagetti man, teapots, or that you don't know. It matters little to me. As far as I'm concerned though, Its either been designed, or given purpose, or its an accidental phenomenon. IMO, I can't rationally asses this world as an accident. Its without doubt the work of thought. What you believe about it is of no consequence to that. My view is simple, you either believe its an accident, its purposeful or you're undecided.


  • #98
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    rockbeer wrote: »
    A very good question. Many forms of sorting device occur naturally. Rivers and oceans, for example, sort and grade minerals very effectively. When you see pebbles of different sizes sorted neatly into strata on a beach, do you think to yourself "ah yes, obviously somebody must have come along and arranged these"?

    No. The Physical laws would show how this occurred. Then the question shifts as to how these physical laws came about. However, if these pebbles were arranged into Mount Rushmore, then yes, i would certainly say that someone has purposely arranged them that way.
    Is a river "designed with the purpose of sorting pebbles"?

    As i said previously, somewhere along the line of the past, we come to the question of 'accidental, or purposeful'. I've heard the quip many times ' evolution, or nature, finds a way'. Well, it doesn't. Without a director or programming, it accidentally happens upon a way. It neither looks nor finds. It merely does, accidentally. Sooner or later, as you roll back the time, this question arises. We are one big accident, or we were purposefully programmed or designed etc. if their was never a thought, which takes a being, or a mind etc, then its all accident.


  • #99
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    And, Jimitime, what if we were an accident? If when you rolled back the clock to the very first moment, to the beginning, what if it all happened accidentally? Would that really make a difference? I don't see the point of your argument. We can apply the same logic to the idea of a god. Was it created accidentally? What was its cause?


  • #100
    rockbeer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭rockbeer


    JimiTime wrote: »
    No. However, if these pebbles were arranged into Mount Rushmore, then yes, i would certainly say that something has purposely arranged them that way.


    As i said previously, somewhere along the line of the past, we come to the question of 'accidental, or purposeful'.

    The point I'm making is that a river 'sorts' pebbles entirely as a side effect of its primary 'purpose' of getting water downhill. In that sense, its rock-sorting abilities are 'accidental' (using your words here, they're not the ones I'd choose). Nonetheless, it results in something that looks remarkably like order. So how can you be certain that all the natural order you see isn't the result of such side-effects? There's really nothing in nature that looks compellingly 'designed'. Quite the opposite.

    I always laugh when I hear creationists talking about how nature 'must have' been designed, and how you only have to look at it to see the evidence.

    As somebody with a certain amount of design training, I can honestly say that it looks anything but. It's full of elementary examples of the neglect of basic design principles that no self-respecting designer would be happy with, let alone an infallible one. If I was designing a world and came up with some of the so-called 'solutions' we see around us I'd expect to be sent back to the first grade.


  • #101
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    rockbeer wrote: »

    As somebody with a certain amount of design training, I can honestly say that it looks anything but. It's full of elementary examples of the neglect of basic design principles that no self-respecting designer would be happy with, let alone an infallible one. If I was designing a world and came up with some of the so-called 'solutions' we see around us I'd expect to be sent back to the first grade.


    Well when you do design your own world and I've something tangiable to compare this one too, get back to me.
    .
    I always laugh when I hear creationists talking about how nature 'must have' been designed, and how you only have to look at it to see the evidence..

    Then all we are doing is laughing at each other. Maybe one of us will laugh last or none of us will:)


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    JimiTime wrote: »


    As i said previously, somewhere along the line of the past, we come to the question of 'accidental, or purposeful'. I've heard the quip many times ' evolution, or nature, finds a way'. Well, it doesn't. Without a director or programming, it accidentally happens upon a way. It neither looks nor finds. It merely does, accidentally. Sooner or later, as you roll back the time, this question arises. We are one big accident, or we were purposefully programmed or designed etc. if their was never a thought, which takes a being, or a mind etc, then its all accident.
    I can see where you are coming from with this. I have to say, I do have a problem with the term accidental, but I think this is simply to do my my perception of what an accident is. I simply don't think that natural selection is an accidental process, in the sense that we normally use the term. I don't think it is a big deal, it is certainly not something I back away from, I just don't think it is an appropriate term.

    MrP


  • #103
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Well when you do design your own world and I've something tangiable to compare this one too, get back to me.
    I understand why you might not like this type of comment, but looking at it objectively it is valid. Obviously we cannot design our own world, but as has been mentioned before, if we could, it would be a lot different. If we and the world are designed it is fairly clear that the designer was having an off day.

    I know we have had this discussion before but it is fairly simple. If the universe was designed by a perfect being then it is a bit..... crap.

    If it came about by "accident" then it is truely amazing.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    Then all we are doing is laughing at each other. Maybe one of us will laugh last.
    We may never know.

    MrP


  • #104
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    -JammyDodger- wrote: »
    And, Jimitime, what if we were an accident? If when you rolled back the clock to the very first moment, to the beginning, what if it all happened accidentally? Would that really make a difference? I don't see the point of your argument. We can apply the same logic to the idea of a god. Was it created accidentally? What was its cause?


    If you recall, my point was merely that it was odd and curious that alot of atheists backed away from the word. Thats all. Its certainly a loaded curiosity, as I believe many back away from the word because it makes the belief sound very far fetched, i.e. That the world, universe etc is accidental. Its certainly, as put ealier, amazing if it is. An unmatched phenomenon. I've no issue with someone who says, 'yes it was a big accident'. i just disagree fervantly, and find it far fetched. Then, many find my belief in God far fetched. Such is the wonder of men and their opinions.

    As for God; the belief in God removes that question. If God created the universe, then he's not bound by its limitations and laws, be it Time, space whatever. So the question is Moot, as he is above nature and we only have limited understanding of him.


  • #105
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    MrPudding wrote: »
    I can see where you are coming from with this. I have to say, I do have a problem with the term accidental, but I think this is simply to do my my perception of what an accident is. I simply don't think that natural selection is an accidental process, in the sense that we normally use the term. I don't think it is a big deal, it is certainly not something I back away from, I just don't think it is an appropriate term.

    MrP

    Fair enough. Would you have a term you think appropriate?


  • #106
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    JimiTime wrote: »
    If you recall, my point was merely that it was odd and curious that alot of atheists backed away from the word. Thats all. Its certainly a loaded curiosity, as I believe many back away from the word because it makes the belief sound very far fetched, i.e. That the world, universe etc is accidental. Its certainly, as put ealier, amazing if it is. An unmatched phenomenon. I've no issue with someone who says, 'yes it was a big accident'. i just disagree fervantly, and find it far fetched. Then, many find my belief in God far fetched. Such is the wonder of men and their opinions.

    I don't back away from the word accident. I back away from it being used the way it often is: That something else was intended, if it goes wrong, it's an accident. An accident implies, to me anyway, that there had to have been a purpose.
    As for God; the belief in God removes that question. If God created the universe, then he's not bound by its limitations and laws, be it Time, space whatever. So the question is Moot, as he is above nature and we only have limited understanding of him.

    I think that this is the most unsatisfying answer ever: It's such a cop out from theists. It's throughly frustrating.

    One could argue that, since all of the energy/mass contained in the universe was contained in the singularity at the beginning, and since space and time were also contained in this same singularity, then, the singularity itself was above, and not bound by, the current laws of nature.

    That answer is as valid as your "God did it answer".


  • #107
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    MrPudding wrote: »
    I understand why you might not like this type of comment, but looking at it objectively it is valid. Obviously we cannot design our own world, but as has been mentioned before, if we could, it would be a lot different. If we and the world are designed it is fairly clear that the designer was having an off day.

    I know we have had this discussion before but it is fairly simple. If the universe was designed by a perfect being then it is a bit..... crap.

    If it came about by "accident" then it is truely amazing.

    I disagree fervantly though. Removing death from the equation, (As in Christian terms that was not part of the original design, nor will it be in the future)

    1. Love, the ultimate in design. 'The Vor sprung durch technic':)
    2. Beauty in all its forms. We have senses that the world tantilises. Be it visual, Aural etc


    Now, if we talk about the blind spot, the teste's not being in a titanium sack or whatever, i think a huge injustice has been done on the designer.
    We may never know.

    MrP

    Touché:)


  • #108
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    ....If God created the universe, then he's not bound by its limitations and laws, be it Time, space whatever. So the question is Moot, as he is above nature and we only have limited understanding of him.

    So why then does he choose certain things? Why get offended? How is it possible that he can be rejected or accepted? Does he dip into nature every now then or is it that some bits of him* are natural and others something else. Jealousy, love, offense you'd think he'd be "above" all that? Why do you guys always portray a god that is bound by his own rules?

    *being a him brings an object firmly into the realms of nature in my opinion.


  • #109
    rockbeer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭rockbeer


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Well when you do design your own world and I've something tangiable to compare this one too, get back to me.

    Are you saying different design principles apply to worlds than to other things? If so, how do you know what they are, and how do you know that you're seeing them in action when you look at our world?

    I thought the whole point was that we could recognize 'design' because of our familiarity with it. Now you appear to be saying a new set of rules apply. Perhaps you could describe them and explain how you learned of them?


  • #110
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Fair enough. Would you have a term you think appropriate?
    I don't actually know, to be perfectly honest.:o

    MrP


  • #111
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    -JammyDodger- wrote: »
    I don't back away from the word accident. I back away from it being used the way it often is: That something else was intended, if it goes wrong, it's an accident. An accident implies, to me anyway, that there had to have been a purpose.

    Dictionary definition in the context of its use here.
    Accident: any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or cause.
    I think that this is the most unsatisfying answer ever: It's such a cop out from theists. It's throughly frustrating.

    LOL, its only frustrating because it stops further debate or questioning on the matter. Its a very simple but acceptable answer. That it frustrates you is your problem.
    One could argue that, since all of the energy/mass contained in the universe was contained in the singularity at the beginning, and since space and time were also contained in this same singularity, then, the singularity itself was above, and not bound by, the current laws of nature.

    That answer is as valid as your "God did it answer".

    You are conflating two questions now. My answer was not 'God did it'. My answer was in response to your question of,
    'We can apply the same logic to the idea of a god. Was it created accidentally? What was its cause?'

    The answer I gave is nothing to do with 'God did it', but rather showing that the same logic does not have to be applied to a being who is outside of the natural universe.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Does a coin counter come into existance by accident?

    It can (if by accident you mean no purpose)

    For example a few days ago I dropped some money onto a grill in front of my offices. The small coins feel through and the larger ones didn't. The grill was not designed for this purpose, and there are plenty of examples one can think of in nature that would function a similar way, but that doesn't stop the grill from selecting small coins and rejecting big ones (or vice versa depending on which side you are standing on)


  • #113
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Accident: any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or cause.

    But nothing we have been discussing happens unexpectedly does it?
    JimiTime wrote: »
    The answer I gave is nothing to do with 'God did it', but rather showing that the same logic does not have to be applied to a being who is outside of the natural universe.

    So only things inside the natural universe either have purpose or are accidents?

    Things outside the universe can just be as they are with that being an accident?

    or is God just an "accident" as well?


  • #114
    Schuhart
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,835 ✭✭✭Schuhart


    Wicknight wrote: »
    is God just an "accident" as well?
    Same question occured to me. I know the discussion is slightly (but not completely) repeating. But is this question not the one to be answer by theists using the 'it can't be accident' argument?

    In fairness, is also accurate to say that a need for clarity about the ultimate origins of everything is not actually the basis for faith. If anything, its the basis for unbelief.


  • #115
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Schuhart wrote: »
    Same question occured to me. I know the discussion is slightly (but not completely) repeating. But is this question not the one to be answer by theists using the 'it can't be accident' argument?

    In fairness, is also accurate to say that a need for clarity about the ultimate origins of everything is not actually the basis for faith. If anything, its the basis for unbelief.

    While not sharing Jimi's definition of 'accident', I don't see how something can be called an accident if it's always been there. The Christian view is that God did not come into being at any point, but has always existed as an Eternal Being.


  • #116
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    PDN wrote: »
    While not sharing Jimi's definition of 'accident', I don't see how something can be called an accident if it's always been there. The Christian view is that God did not come into being at any point, but has always existed as an Eternal Being.

    And are there quotes in the bible that state, or can be interpreted to state, that God is eternal? Or is it just an assumption? I'm not making diggs at the Bible; I'm actually curious to know.

    That's one of the reasons why I don't believe in religion. I don't find the answers "God's eternal" and "God made the universe" to be in anyway satisfying. It's simplifying one of the greatest questions ever. What actually created it all, in my opinion, was far greater and more mysterious than any God; and trying to figure it out is one of sciences greatest missions: A mission I hope to be part of. Religion, to me, is just too easy.


  • #117
    Schuhart
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,835 ✭✭✭Schuhart


    PDN wrote: »
    While not sharing Jimi's definition of 'accident', I don't see how something can be called an accident if it's always been there. The Christian view is that God did not come into being at any point, but has always existed as an Eternal Being.
    And, in fairness, that may well work for you. You'll just appreciate that (without going in to all those turtles) the idea that all along there just happened to be an Eternal Being brim full of Purpose seems a bit arbitrary.

    Clearly, if someone accepts the Bible for reasons unconnected with Genesis, then accepting a Christian view of these things follows as a consequence. And I feel that's where the gap might be. Is it fair to say this is not the 'first principle' from which people derive a God? The 'first principle' (I'm guessing - but clearly not pretending I know your mind) would surely be simply that the picture of daily life Christianity gives you seems intuitively correct. Hence, all that's needed is to know that God is not absolutely ruled out as author of the Universe, rather than that the presence of a creator is required.

    Whereas, the atheist view is Occam's Razor. Why assume a god if not absolutely necessary? If William of Ockham was a Franciscan, presumably he didn't apply his Razor to this question. But doesn't that reflect that the basis for faith is elsewhere? Occam's Razor might also lead someone to say that atheism requires us to see many human aspirations, like absolute morality, as extravagant. In that context, a simpler explanation could be to assume a god.


  • #118
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Dictionary definition in the context of its use here.
    Accident: any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or cause.

    As Wicknight said, that definition in this context is flawed. Does an apple fall to the ground unexpectedly? The rest of the definition I somewhat agree with though, at least the "without a deliberate plan" part. I've no doubt that everything in the universe can and, hopefully someday, will be explained; all except one thing: The beginning. Perhaps it was accidental, perhaps it wasn't; I don't pretend to know the answer. Religious people pretend to know that answer, and, to me, that's highly arrogant.
    LOL, its only frustrating because it stops further debate or questioning on the matter. Its a very simple but acceptable answer. That it frustrates you is your problem.

    It's a very simple answer, but not an acceptable one. How arrogant to humans to assume that the beginning of the universe can be explained with such a simple answer. That's my problem with that statement: I find it completely and utterly intellectually unsatisfying. I can retaliate and say "well, the singularity that created the universe was outside of the universe, thus, it was not bound by the current laws, time, space etc.". That's the exact same as what theists say, just replace the word "singularity" with God. And it's a more satisfying answer, as it has firm groundings in physics and mathematics.

    You are conflating two questions now. My answer was not 'God did it'. My answer was in response to your question of,
    'We can apply the same logic to the idea of a god. Was it created accidentally? What was its cause?'

    The answer I gave is nothing to do with 'God did it', but rather showing that the same logic does not have to be applied to a being who is outside of the natural universe.

    No. I'm showing that the same logic that is applied to God can be applied to the concept of a singularity.


  • #119
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    PDN wrote: »
    While not sharing Jimi's definition of 'accident',

    That was a dictionary definition. What would you define accident as? As I asked Mr P earlier. In the absence of Something giving it all direction, what is it? If you don't like accident, at least give an alternative?


  • #120
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    -JammyDodger- wrote: »
    hopefully someday, will be explained; all except one thing: The beginning. Perhaps it was accidental, perhaps it wasn't; I don't pretend to know the answer. Religious people pretend to know that answer, and, to me, that's highly arrogant.

    Fine, think of it as arrogant. That kind of Rhetoric means little to me tbh.
    It's a very simple answer, but not an acceptable one. How arrogant to humans to assume that the beginning of the universe can be explained with such a simple answer. That's my problem with that statement: I find it completely and utterly intellectually unsatisfying. I can retaliate and say "well, the singularity that created the universe was outside of the universe, thus, it was not bound by the current laws, time, space etc.". That's the exact same as what theists say, just replace the word "singularity" with God. And it's a more satisfying answer, as it has firm groundings in physics and mathematics.

    Again, I really don't care that it doesn't satisfy you or that you think of it as arrogant. I just file under Rhetoric, NEXT.
    No. I'm showing that the same logic that is applied to God can be applied to the concept of a singularity.

    Yes, but you jumped the gun. I never got into the God question. I never said about what 'it' was. How I came to discover it was God is a different issue entirely.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Fine, think of it as arrogant. That kind of Rhetoric means little to me tbh.

    Fair enough.
    Again, I really don't care that it doesn't satisfy you or that you think of it as arrogant. I just file under Rhetoric, NEXT.

    Ironic, you appear to be quite arrogant in that sentence.
    Yes, but you jumped the gun. I never got into the God question. I never said about what 'it' was. How I came to discover it was God is a different issue entirely.

    You've been saying that the universe either happened by accident or it was created, have you not? That has been your point all along, at least that's what you've been implying is your point. You've been arguing for the case of the latter, the creator. Now, you claim that you weren't talking about a god? What else could the creator be? You've been going on about how things seem to be intelligently designed, that things seem to have purpose; and you've been arguing that this can only be achieved by a creator, i.e not accidentally. So, if you haven't been talking about God, what exactly have you been talking about? What is this creator?


Advertisement