-
P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat
There must be a Creator
- Thread starter Lackasham
- Start date
rickolasnice
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 6,810
2) Look up the anthropic principle.
Ksa
Ex-Bluelighter
I'm atheist, I don't believe.
Ksa
Ex-Bluelighter
Brother rick is quoting from the Qur'an, in Surat Al-Mā'idah, Chapter number 5, Verse Number 75 which says:
"The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded."
Jesus was the son of Mary, and the both had FOOD. The implications of eating food is that sooner or later, you have to look for the bush or the rock, you can't be helped. So Muslims believe God doesn't take a shit basically.
Well, he did create this, Oholah and Oholibah sex-hungry Jewish prostitutes and look what they did, in Ezekiel Chapter 23, Verse 19-20:
"Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt."
"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses."
So she lusted after that donkey dick...that huge dick that blew a monster load. You know the other sister went balls deep worst then the other and this is what Ezekiel Chapter 23 talks about. How all those men with donkey dicks could not sate those Jewish prostitutes...insatiable bitches! Got un-fucked as soon as they finished fucking! All those men came, they fucked...they fucked...they fucked...and couldn't sate them for shit, with all their donkey dicks and horse "emissions"!
Last edited:
What about separation of church and state? Sinning is not illegal, although some sins may fall into that category.
So Jesus failed his mission! He came here, paraphrasing you, to die for our sins as the blameless lamb of God, to give us a second chance, and now we sin harder then ever! You realize what he's done? He's enabled us. But of course, we don't agree that he's done that
At least it wasn't his intention. God is never wrong and does not fail.
How is that failing the mission if the mission was to give us a second chance, not for people to never sin again?
MikeOekiM
Bluelighter
but what if there's some reason why we go through all the bad stuff?
"Nobody knows."
-Chuckie Finster
bennyZA
Bluelighter
Who created the creator?
rickolasnice
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 6,810
Brother Ksa.. No I wasn't.. I think you missed the point..
Why would an all powerful creator create something (which he loves dearly) so weak and prone to damage / death. Why would he create the whole notion of eating and breathing to live in the first place..
If I remember correctly Adam and Eve (and their children) were supposed to live forever.. but eating that apple pissed god off enough to condemn us all to inherit sin (lovely).. but they still needed to breathe and eat.. It says that somewhere in Genesis too. The human body is fragile and the human mind is weak (compared to an all powerful god). Why did he create us like this knowing (being omniscient an all) that the snake will sway them into going against gods wishes therefore damning the human race. It's not my fault his perfect creations weren't perfect after all..
Oh and Tromps, using your logic of every creation has a creator.. What Benny said.
Why would an all powerful creator create something (which he loves dearly) so weak and prone to damage / death. Why would he create the whole notion of eating and breathing to live in the first place..
If I remember correctly Adam and Eve (and their children) were supposed to live forever.. but eating that apple pissed god off enough to condemn us all to inherit sin (lovely).. but they still needed to breathe and eat.. It says that somewhere in Genesis too. The human body is fragile and the human mind is weak (compared to an all powerful god). Why did he create us like this knowing (being omniscient an all) that the snake will sway them into going against gods wishes therefore damning the human race. It's not my fault his perfect creations weren't perfect after all..
Oh and Tromps, using your logic of every creation has a creator.. What Benny said.
Ksa
Ex-Bluelighter
Brother Ksa.. No I wasn't.. I think you missed the point..
Why would an all powerful creator create something (which he loves dearly) so weak and prone to damage / death. Why would he create the whole notion of eating and breathing to live in the first place..
If I remember correctly Adam and Eve (and their children) were supposed to live forever.. but eating that apple pissed god off enough to condemn us all to inherit sin (lovely).. but they still needed to breathe and eat.. It says that somewhere in Genesis too. The human body is fragile and the human mind is weak (compared to an all powerful god). Why did he create us like this knowing (being omniscient an all) that the snake will sway them into going against gods wishes therefore damning the human race. It's not my fault his perfect creations weren't perfect after all..
Oh and Tromps, using your logic of every creation has a creator.. What Benny said.
That's why God is not a solution...it's a problem.
mal3volent
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2011
- Messages
- 40,026
The painter/painting theory and every other Ray Comfort-ism has been refuted. Oh look, theres a video of it happening:
[video=youtube_share;X3LIoSR3Kmo]http://youtu.be/X3LIoSR3Kmo[/video]
[video=youtube_share;X3LIoSR3Kmo]http://youtu.be/X3LIoSR3Kmo[/video]
Oh and Tromps, using your logic of every creation has a creator.. What Benny said.
God is not a creation.
Ksa
Ex-Bluelighter
That's the problem...lol. That's why it doesn't work.
Brian Greene mentioned in an interview question asked to him:
A number of leading scientists are deeply religious. Do you think it’s possible to reconcile deeply held metaphysical religious belief in God with established claims of theoretical physics, or do you think that when serious scientists are religious, it’s because they keep their work and their spiritual lives separate?
"I think there’s a compatibility as long as your religious sensibility’s not literal. If you try to literally interpret teachings of the Bible you run smack into some pretty significant problems with what we’ve discovered in science. But if you’re willing to view religion more in a Spinozan or even Einsteinian way—that there is an overarching order and harmony that the laws of physics represent and reveal, and that order and harmony, if you want, ascribe it to some deeper theological origin—then I don’t think science has much to say about that. What science is pretty good at ruling out is the so-called “God of the gaps”—the traditional way of invoking God whenever there’s something in science that we haven’t figured out. The problem is, once we figure it out, that particular invocation of God is no longer necessary; it gets pushed to the side. So that’s a recipe for God getting squeezed to the margins. But if you don’t view God as the reservoir of temporary answers to issues we haven’t solved scientifically, but rather as some overarching structure within which science takes place, and if that makes you happy and satisfied, so be it. I don’t see the need for that; others do."
Last edited:
Psyduck
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2008
- Messages
- 672
why?
mutatis mutandi: "the universe is not a creation"
you just invent/propose/construct a definition "god is not a creation." How do you argue for that?
mutatis mutandi, I can say "the universe is not a creation" (hooray, nice definition... so we no longer need a creator). This is a fantastic argument -- and it does clearly convince any believer in God -- doesn't it?
Moral of the story: one cannot just introduce some convenient attributes/properties, one must also argue for them rationally/logically.
atara
Bluelighter
The problem with this argument is that we could easily imagine several alternatives to a God. For example, maybe every possible world exists, and living beings are by necessity only around in those worlds which support life. Obviously there aren't going to be any living things in a world which can't support life, so any living being will find that it lives in "an environment perfect for our survival", for some rather broad definition of "perfect", even though no world is associated to a deity.
There's no real reason you've given to support the God-resolution over the possible-world resolution, and of course many other attacks on this question have been considered, historically.
Ksa
Ex-Bluelighter
The Qur'an attempts just that, as it mentions in Surat Al-Baqarah, Chapter 2 Verse 171 which says:
"The example of those who disbelieve is like that of one who shouts at what hears nothing but calls and cries cattle or sheep - deaf, dumb and blind, so they do not understand."
Hahah! Aside from the peasant, cattle growing phrase structure, God says that if you keep arguing rationally/logically against the sayings of the prophets, you are deaf, dumb and blind!
Apparently God has a big fear of rejection, he is afraid of being rejected and tosses tantrums resembling the ones tossed to cattle by mountain-top peasants lol!
atara
Bluelighter
benny said:
A more rigorous version of the contingency argument looks a bit like this:
P1. All physical things have a cause
P2. Mystical things may not have a cause
P3. A thing may not cause itself
D1. The world is the set of all physical things
T1[P1, D1]. The world has a cause.
T2[T1, P3, D1]. The cause of the world cannot be a physical thing.
T3[T2]. The cause of the world must be a mystical thing.
D2. We call God the mystical cause of the world.
Of course, there are plenty of reasons to reject this argument, but most versions depend on setting up a distinction between the necessary qualities of a world and a God. There are many who would reject each proposition; one logical hole is that it's not clear if D1 sets the world as a physical thing if it is not finite, since all ordinary physical things are finite.
Psyduck
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2008
- Messages
- 672
Ksa
Ex-Bluelighter
Ok but I am not sure that people 2,500 years ago were that smart to go through a logical sequence like that. Imagine you're the father of those Jewish prostitutes portrayed in Ezekiel Chapter 23, you come home worn out by slavery and your daughters come home...like the Bible says, filled with emission from those donkey dicks and horses and whatever, come home, sit on a chair...and they leak white filth all over the place.
How do you feel? You feel powerless don't you? Your daughters are defiled, your freedom is non-existent, you own nothing you starve, and your daughters only eat emissions from men. You feel powerless! For someone like that to start putting his hopes in a higher power, it doesn't take a logical sequence lol! It is out of mere frustration for the people having more power then them!
When someone beats you up in school, first thing that comes to your mind is the Principal! Higher power to deliver you! So people started assuming that there must be a higher power who will deliver them from this miserable life. It is only natural for people to hope, but hope has to be founded on something solid and they invented God to found their hopes on.
The problem with humans of that time is that they would have pitty doing to cattle what they dared doing to other human beings. The concept of God emerged according to me to appease their recklessness and say like, ok Tommy, raping a pregnant woman, then cutting her belly open and tossing her unborn child to the dogs is bad! Bad Tommy! You should not do that!
There was also sick rituals where, if a child was born physically handicapped, they would take the child, force it back into the mother and sew the vagina so that the baby would never come out, then beat the mother on the head with stones until she died. Humans had no boundaries so they had to put a boundary to the abomination.
Last edited:
CoffeeDrinker
Bluelighter
The logical fallacy here is that if you created a creature in your image, you wouldn't be able to institute these unrealistic features if you wanted to. If you did, it would have to be a robot or a rock monster, or something with an astro-rubbery plastic make-up that was decay and burn proof, which, sort of, goes against the idea you're making a species in your image.
TlDr man is god and god is man, and how very disappointed I am to break it to you all.
One Thousand Words
Bluelighter
I never said a carbon copy. He would just be blessed with my killer good looks, with perhaps a reflective silver coat to protect me from the Sun