|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9189 total) |
| |
Michaeladams | |
Total: 918,963 Year: 6,220/9,624 Month: 68/240 Week: 11/72 Day: 11/9 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Who Made God? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 604 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Asking, "Who made God?" is like asking, "Who made all of those cars?" Just like the cars, those gods were made by a lot of different manufacturers, often with different goals in mind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 604 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Any belief can have its own internally consistent logic. Logic in itself is not an indicator of reality. Is it illogical to accept the belief that God existed before we did and that He has a definite character that we didn't ascribe to Him? The problem is that there are so many logically consistent gods, each with his own definite character. You seem to concede that some of them are made up. I'm just wondering why you think one is different. Sure, there could be one real god and a whole passle of made-up ones - but how do you know yours is the real one?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 604 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
That sounds a bit like somebody saying his wife/girlfriend is the "only one" for him. How do you distinguish between "the best of many" (which only includes the ones you've met) and "only one exists"?
All that I can claim is that He is the real One in my belief. Phat writes:
Is it "nesessary and espected" for me to push my belief that Coca-Cola is the only "real" soft drink?
Would it be necessary and expected for me to push my belief?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 604 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
That isn't true. I always wanted the Bible to succeed - but the more I tried to prove it was true, the more it failed. The only way to see it as "true" is with your eyes shut.
The Bible was never "found to fail" except by people who wanted it to fail.... Faith writes:
At best, it's hearsay. Even our justice system, which is much less rigorous than science, wouldn't accept it as evidence.
It's ALL witness testimony....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 604 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
It's true that one's eyes have to be open to the truth. Yours, unfortunately, are not - as witnessed by the utterly ridiculous contortions that you go through to try to explain the creation and the flood. You mangle the Bible to "prove" it's true and you make a laughingstock of believers in the process.
Well, God has to open your eyes to the truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 604 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
"Seek and ye shall find." If you actively avoid the truth, even the God of the Bible won't prop your eyes open with toothpicks. Ignoring real evidence in favour of Bible stories is avoidance if anything ever was.
IF God is no respector of persons, why is it that He only opens SOME eyes to "the truth"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 604 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
On that principle, you shouldn't be allowed to say anything about evolution.
the modern scholars are predominantly unbelievers. They should not be allowed to say anything about the Bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 604 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
As a wise hillbilly used to say, "When he tells you howdy, he's told you everything he knows."
Yes, one liners are about right for the occasion I'd say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 604 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Unless I could actually get into it and drive it, it's pretty obvious that it's just made up.
Imagine that you one day became aware of a certain car. By definition, it eased your anxiety, confirmed your desire, and was capable of getting you to where you wanted to go. Without seeing a picture of it and without another description of it, could you say you made it up (imagined it) or could it be possible that you simply became aware of it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 604 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Whenever I ask you where I can get a car like that, you tell me I don't want one.
I also dont need proof of the car as long as such a car would also be proven useful to me and whether I too could acquire such a car.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 604 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
Because it's nonsense.
Why is it so difficult to simply say that God was not created therefore needs no cause?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 604 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Well, to "make sense" logically, an idea has to start with true premises, doesn't it? How can you tell whether or not something is true without evidence?
It seems to me that you simply think that any unevidenced belief is nonsense. Phat writes:
The word "miracle" certainly is part of my vocabulary. So are "God" and "Santa Claus" and "Bigfoot".
You, on the other hand, wave away any belief as nonsense precisely because it is unevidenced and you wont allow the term miracle to be part of your vocabulary. Phat writes:
You say that as if it was a bad thing. You would wait your whole life for evidence without believing in anything. Which is worse? To wait your whole life without knowing or to spend your whole life being wrong?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 604 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
What? ringo writes:
They are roughly the same. Which is worse? To wait your whole life without knowing or to spend your whole life being wrong? Did you read the question at all?
Phat writes:
And if you're wrong your whole life, you're still wrong the whole time you're dead. How is that "roughly the same" as waiting your whole life for evidence without believing in anything?
The time you spend dead is a lot longer than the time you will spend alive. Phat writes:
Pascal was Catholic. You've already lost that wager.
Plus I always liked the idea of Pascals Wager
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 604 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
The expansion of the universe is an observation, not a logical conclusion.
Where is the true premise (evidence) for the universe and everything in it existing at the Planck epoch, the size of a pin point before it began to expand?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 604 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
You're not really talking about three different models. You're talking about three Toyota Corollas in slightly different shades of blue.
OK, going with your analogy... let's examine 3 models. The first model is who the Jews perceived around the time of Jesus birth and also around the time Saul of Tarsus was afoot. The second model was the one whom Jesus called Father.The third model was the one that allegedly knocked Saul off his high horse and spurned him into becoming Paul and starting a new religion. One could argue that a real God existed amongst these contenders... Phat writes:
And it works.
People these days place their hope in science and technology to alleviate suffering. Phat writes:
Why?
God forbid we have a polytheistic universe. I prefer a monotheistic reality. Phat writes:
And your requests ARE turned down, so the committee seems more likely - or no God at all.
A committee of Gods would more likely turn down my requests. Phat writes:
You don't know Him.
If I simply waited for God to reveal His name to me, I would never get an opportunity to begin to get to know Him. Phat writes:
Subsitute "leprechauns" for "God" and answer the question yourself. My point is that you have concluded that God likely isn't here. I have concluded that He likely is. Is either position any worse than the other?And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024