Moderator: Community Team
WHY? What do you mean 'by definition'? WHy is god and not the universe? Where does your reasoning come from? What does 'self sufficient' mean? I have just told you that a new branch of science suggests that the universe may very well be 'self sufficient'. Your description of god is just a cop out, a way to end the first cause argument in a neat and semantically rounded way, and nothing more.MR. Nate wrote:God by definition is eternally existant and entirely self sufficiant. The universe is not, which is why I keep asking the question.heavycola wrote:Where did god come from?
I don;t read 'scholarly journals' these days, but what does publication have to do with things? Creationism is bunk. No evidence has ever been found to support it - in fact every scientific fact points the other way entirely. Complexity does NOT imply design and has not since Darwin's theory - peer reviewed and attacked fruitlessly on all sides by outraged xian scientists for years - demonstrated as such. All creationists have ever done is hang desperately onto the symbolic fairytales in genesis as fact, while trying to poke holes in natural selection (and failign miserably). There are people who spend their time trying to argue with creationists, but it's like trying to convince a three year-old that Thomas the Tank Engine isn't real and that trains don't talk or have faces.MR. Nate wrote:ID isn't a valid theory why? because it's not published in scholarly journals. Why won't they publish it in scholarly journals? it's not a valid theory. I think this means I win by default, but I'm prepared to be proven wrong.heavycola wrote: Creationism/ID is not a valid theory in ANY respect at all. I am done arguing about it, jay rather did my nut in with his creationist ravings...

My description of God is not a cop out, it has the orthodox description of God for the last 2000 years in Christianity. You said that "the universe may be it's own cause." I'm curious how that's possible. The reason I harp on this is because everthing we can see has a cause. We have yet to find the one "uncaused." Yet you're unwilling to accept another unseen (God) as the solution to the problem of causation. You would rather say that something created itself which seems nebulous at best.heavycola wrote:WHY? What do you mean 'by definition'? WHy is god and not the universe? Where does your reasoning come from? What does 'self sufficient' mean? I have just told you that a new branch of science suggests that the universe may very well be 'self sufficient'. Your description of god is just a cop out, a way to end the first cause argument in a neat and semantically rounded way, and nothing more.
If you're prepared to go there, you need to be prepared that a lot of things are "failed pathways" such as morality, truth, beauty, art, etc. You want to go that route?Bertros Bertros wrote:Of course not, some characteristics will be misfires in evolution, failed pathways if you like. Maybe religion will turn out to be one of these...
Just because something has been orthodox for a while doesn't imply it is correct.My description of God is not a cop out, it has the orthodox description of God for the last 2000 years in Christianity. You said that "the universe may be it's own cause." I'm curious how that's possible. The reason I harp on this is because everthing we can see has a cause. We have yet to find the one "uncaused." Yet you're unwilling to accept another unseen (God) as the solution to the problem of causation.
Indeed it is...You would rather say that something created itself which seems nebulous at best.

Absolutely. Maybe "failed pathways" is the wrong term, its certainly derogatory, which was not my real intent. Side effects is perhaps better.Mr Nate wrote:Bertros Bertros wrote:
Of course not, some characteristics will be misfires in evolution, failed pathways if you like. Maybe religion will turn out to be one of these...
If you're prepared to go there, you need to be prepared that a lot of things are "failed pathways" such as morality, truth, beauty, art, etc. You want to go that route?
Hear hearmirak wrote:In the meantime it is refreshing to discuss all this with someone such as yourself as opposed to the fire and brimstone variety that is unfortunately the norm.
heavycola wrote:OK Nate thanks for skipping creationism... but just out of interest where do you stand on genesis? Mythos or logos? Real or symbolic truths?
Mirak wrote:In the meantime it is refreshing to discuss all this with someone such as yourself as opposed to the fire and brimstone variety that is unfortunately the norm.
It may really surprise you to know that I am actually a great admirer of Christ and his teachings....or more accurately his philosophyMR. Nate wrote: I would also argue that deviations from genuine religion are the reason that athiests exist. If more Christians acted in a more Christlike manner, I think a lot of these discussions disappear.
first up, i have never thought about this from the POV you put forward - that if there was a creation event several thousand years ago it would screw with the science... i still can't give creationism an iota of credibility though. Science explains SO MUCH that we take for granted - this PC is working according to the behaviour of waves and particles we have never even seen. Odd to decide that a 3,000 year old collection of writings, which most scholars now acknowledge was inherited form other cultures' creation myths and which was only ever intended as symbolic truth, should suddenly reverse science completely.About that universe being self sufficient thing, how does that work with entropy? If that's a "creation" question, feel free to ignore it, but I am curious.

We all have our flaws..MR. Nate wrote: Mirak, I'm curious of your position on the claims that Christ made about being God. It's traditionally known as the "Trilemma" although I don't like the term myself. I've never heard a good explanation how Christ could be a brilliant moral teacher, without being somehow disqualified because of his belief that he was God.
Usually, but in Jesus case he was God and you know it because the Book tells you so.2dimes wrote:I don't think you understood the concept Marik.
Usually the guy that go around saying they are God are quite insane and so don't make good teacher/philosophers.
David Koresh and Jim Jones for example.
I never said I was literate. Wait I maybe did say that, but I won't claim spelling capabilities.vtmarik wrote:Usually, but in Jesus case he was God and you know it because the Book tells you so.
Yeah....
And he's Mirak, I'm Marik
I wrote:the guy that go around saying...
You know, The Good Book. The Bible.2dimes wrote:I never said I was literate. Wait I maybe did say that, but I won't claim spelling capabilities.
So anyways what book are you talking about? If it's something reverend Kyle wrote I'd like a copy.
I just noticed english has become my second language.I wrote:the guy that go around saying...
Oh, sorry. So where in the bible?vtmarik wrote:You know, The Good Book. The Bible.2dimes wrote:I never said I was literate. Wait I maybe did say that, but I won't claim spelling capabilities.
So anyways what book are you talking about? If it's something reverend Kyle wrote I'd like a copy.
I just noticed english has become my second language.I wrote:the guy that go around saying...
Duh.
What, where Jesus went around claiming he was God?2dimes wrote:Oh, sorry. So where in the bible?