mknomad5

But that is what theists do; personify, which of course is why I like working with the argument at their level, seeking to debunk in this way.

I agree we should admit ignorance of the universe’s origin, for at least, the reasons you mentioned, which allude to interesting topics in themselves. My method at arriving at this conclusion is different; and that’s a good thing. There are many roads to truth; there are often many true paths to one truth.

Here is the difference; I don’t need evidence of a creator to postulate existence of a creator. I only need a possibly created universe as evidence that it is worthwhile seeking to resolve the dilemma of from where, if anywhere, the universe came. We cannot much say, as you said; anything is possible, even in the implicative sense that nothing much can be ruled out. What seems just as likely as the alternative to me (since we're using Occam's Razor to lend our guesses more credence), is that it is created (for the following reason which I think is quite susceptible to argument, but feels right), since the beings contained in the matrix are capable of creation, or at least construction of new forms from existing physical attributes (and mental come to think of it). That the first cause amounts to a simple mechanism is fine by me, as it still amounts to, essentially, a creative force.

Thanks for your responses.

regis

mknomad5 Quote: . . . That the first cause amounts to a simple mechanism is fine by me, as it still amounts to, essentially, a creative force.

Not necessarily. Would you say that a solar flare has a creator (as in, a sentient being)? I wouldn't.


:devil1:

911

You've got it completely backwards. You do not accept God/s based on other people's imagination.

While not falsifiable; God can be or might not be in confluence with your own life experiences.

If your God likes to wear funny hats; well that's your God. My experience tells me otherwise.

Your belief is the truth; when it comes to this issue. If you believe God wears funny hats; there must be some reason or other that you believe that. Otherwise you will not or you are simply using moot examples in a forum.

The problem then is basing our Faith in somebody's else's imagined God isn't it? Your Faith must be based on your own experiences with God.

Your belief is the truth - do not hold on to what you do not believe.

If you sincrely believe that the IPU exists; there must be some basis for that and if you simply believed because some guy who calls himself "steamer" says so; you are the most pitiful creature on earth.

If you believed in IPU and subsequently you find that it is not in confluence with you life experiences; discard it and belief something else.

I have absolutely no fear that you will end up believing something stupid if you are seeking God; God will guide you; all I ask is that you be honest with yourself.

You see; God does not need you. God is God.

Barefoot Bree

So why, if you are so determined to allow us each to find our own Truth, are you equally determined that, if our Truth is godless, it is wrong? Methinks you have a double standard, my friend.

911

Actually I am not determined at all.
I am not asking you to join anything am I?
I am simply doing what I must do. What I am called to do.

I am, to me, very clearly trying to help "seekers" and I am not called to convert people.

My mission to me is very clear.

Anybody out there even if there is only one of you are seeking - I am here to help you find. Not by asking you to join me, my religion, no.

In my profile, under beliefs, it is stated - undefined. How can I ask you to join - undefined?

Barefoot Bree

That's not what I said at all. I didn't say you were determined to win converts. I said that, by all appearances here, you are determined to allow everyone to find their own Truth. You keep saying so yourself - that everyone's definition of God will be different and hey, it's all good. You're not judging anybody here.

But every time one of us says that our Truth does not include a god concept, you say we are wrong. Which IS judging us. That's the double standard. As long as someone's Truth includes some kind of god, it's good. But if it doesn't, it's wrong.

Want to try that again?

steamer

You did, unless you made one up for yourself.

Perhaps your god is being impersonated by the non-verbal hemisphere of your brain. How could you possiblt know the difference?

Indeed. Your god hath not the power to wear funny hats, yet you have the power to imagine he wears them. Which is more real then, the god or the hat?

I imagine a god wearing a funny hat. You imagine a god without a hat.

Yet then you are stuck with the very real problem of your own fallibility. Whatever you interpret as being an experience of god is no more than your own fallible self doing the interpreting.

It is true I disbelieve any gods exist. Notice how my truth is different than yours? Are you saying both our truths are true?

The reason I could believe the IPU actually exists is that I could have mistaken something imagined for something real. Do you think this is a possiblilty with your god as well? Surely you're not infallible.

Again, the IPU exists soley as an imagined being, just like your god.

It is I asking you to be honest. Your god is a fraud. Why don't you admit it?

You are quite wrong in this. I disbelieve in any gods, so for me they exist only in the same way that the IPU exists. They need me to imagine them or they cease to exist. Just as your god ceases to exist for you as soon as you find yourself paying attention to something else. What value is your god to you? Why bother to give him even a moments thought in which he can exist in?

Stumpy

Pretty good. 15 goals, 10 assists.