Trying to discuss particular contingent realities in a general discussion of contingent reality is an attempt at changing the subject.
No, it's not. It's pointing out your logical leap since your postulate 4 does not follow from your postulate 3, as I have demonstrated.
QED
No, you have not.
Rambling about virtual particles or whatever else doesn't demonstrate anything about metaphysics. So far the only thing you've actually argued metaphysically was our discussion of what a being was.
We've all seen this argument before. You've cut and pasted it into quite enough threads by this time. We are all aware of your opinion on the matter. Less you can come up with something a bit more original, perchance it is time to rethink the cut-and-paste strategy of arguments.
I have shown that none is necessary.
No, you have not.
Rambling about virtual particles or whatever else doesn't demonstrate anything about metaphysics.
This has been demonstrated.
No, it has not been.
Rambling about virtual particles or whatever else doesn't demonstrate anything about metaphysics.
An event can only take place if it has a subject to act upon. So it's simpler to refer to things as causes.
Deflection, deflection, deflection.
And now we reach the point where the child sticks his fingers in his ears and goes "I can't hear you". This should be instructive for those who aren't man-children.
And now we reach the point where the child sticks his fingers in his ears and goes "I can't hear you". This should be instructive for those who aren't man-children.
Moderator's Warning: |
This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg bods.
"Well then, how did all this stuff just appear?"
If we can't explain it/explain it yet, it must be 'god.'
The same bogus/failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps#Usage_in_referring_to_a_type_of_argument
ie,
from the link
'Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]
God-of-the-gaps arguments have been discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge increases, the dominion of God decreases.'
.................................................
who says this ? all scientific findings intentionally or unintentionally prove that the universe has a creator.if I speak for myself ,the more science and technology develop the more I believe in God
it is not the science's business but somehow God shows his own art in every scientific workNothing in science "proves" the universe had a "creator".
God does not show his own art in scientific work. Unless you have proof of this?it is not the science's business but somehow God shows his own art in every scientific work
God does not show his own art in scientific work. Unless you have proof of this?
it is not the science's business but somehow God shows his own art in every scientific work
no it doesn't. Nothing in science demands a creator.
I asked you for proof of science supporting God's existence.unless you think science proves his absence ?
I asked you for proof of this.
Not having evidence to disprove something is not compelling evidence to believe it.I ask the same thing
The existence of anything supernatural is essentially unfalsifiable. By definition or deliberate construction, the claim is designed to be immune to evidence.unless you think science proves his absence ?
The cosmological argument has an infinite number of ways to show it's wrong/absurd...that's the nature of something being wrong. It's old, crafted by the greatest apologist ever, and its been refuted in every meaningful way any number of times. But we're debating it?
The notion that the universe was created is faith-based. Reality is. Its not just that we don't know if it was created....it's worse.
The term "creation" when applied to the universe HAS NO ****ING MEANING. It literally means "created from outside the universe".
Outside the universe...that's outside of reality. That's called NOT REAL. Outside reality = not real.
Real things: check'em out with science!
Not real things: Use faith!
What's so confusing?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?