For convenience’ sake, could you mark the posts that you wrote but don’t mean?
I would like to know when you are debating,and when you are redefining words to suit your metaphysical needs.
Regards,
Shodan
I believe I’ve already explained what I meant. if you are having trouble with that rather simple explanation, I am sure there are other threads where you can drop your little nuggets of “wisdom”.
Or you can stay here and keep pretending to examine both sides of the debate while only questioning one, which is I believe your usual shtick.
It seems to me that belief is based on what a person wants or needs. There are many beliefs and many contradict the other. That is why religions are “Faith” based.
One accepts the explaination they choose, or that fits their desires. One can say if they are healed that it was a god who cured them, others believe it was something in one’s make up or medication. There have been many people who depended on a god to cure a loved one (or them selves) and if they were cured they chose the idea that fits their own thinking. If the person dies they say it was a god’s will that the person died. They accept what ever happens.
Some people need a deep belief system, and to me that is their right(as long as it isn’t pushed on someone else). As for myself, If I have deep pain, I have found a pain killer works better than a prayer. Prayer will help a person relax but before many of the medicines were discovered many people died of Pneumonia,polio,other deceases,that they now do not, and it is seldom that people get deceases if they are vaccinated for, or can have surgery. Caught in it’s early stage many cancers are removed and people live a lot longer than they used to. Is that because prayer is more effective now?
Sure.
They don’t.
Thankfully, I accept unbacked assertions as sound and reasonable, so you’ve won me over.
What do you think “immaterial” means? How could an immaterial entity influence a material entity?
If an entity is immaterial, it cannot touch.
If an entity is immaterial, it cannot speak.
If an entity is immaterial, it cannot see.
If an entity is immaterial, it has no place to store thoughts,
I’m sure religion does give people a warm fuzzy feeling. But when they’re trying to argue for the valididity of their religion, if that’s what they’re offering as evidence it’s a logical fallacy.
Immaterial means not composed of matter. No atoms, no quarks, no subatomic particles, etc.
I have given you one example of how something that doesn’t itself change can affect change in something else. I have never directly observed a creator deity, hence I can not give you a clear explanation as to how a particular entity like that affects change.
Given the fact that an entity which is immaterial cannot touch, see, speak or even think, I’m pretty sure you can’t give us an unclear explanation as to how your immaterial entity can affect change.
I would suggest that the example “love”, while arguably immaterial, certainly isn’t an “entity”. “Thing” is too vague, we’re talking about an entity here, sloppy phrasing aside.
I mean, I don’t think there’s any debate that there could be some THING that set the universe into motion. That’s not hard to imagine. Some kind of process, for which we probably don’t even have a name (or maybe we do), but whatever it was that happened at one point we can give it a fancy name like “enchanced frankensteinian bananatheosis” and hey look at that an immaterial prime mover thingy, oh boy! But that’s a far cry from a sentient entity.
This does seem to apply to everything that exists inside the universe. You see, one of our limitations is that we have to operate in space, and for us to see or touch anything requires something to first traverse some distance.
For reasons perhaps known only to yourself, you’ve already decided whether such principles might apply for entities that operate in no space. To claim to know what’s possible for an entity not bound by spatial limitations based on observations you’ve made inside the universe where we are are all bound by spatial limitation is faulty reasoning.
You can’t provide any evidence that your immaterial entity can effect change according to the rules of the universe as we currently understand it, so you propose she/he/it resides in…no space?!?. What the hell is “no space”? Where the hell is “no space”? How long can you keep on stacking evidenceless impossibilities on top of one another?
By the way, even if your impossible entity existed, and even if it resided in a nonsensical “no space”, and even if the rules of this “no space” allowed immaterial entities to effect material objects, the instant your immaterial entity stepped out of “no space” into the real universe she/he/it would again be bound by the rules of the real universe-no body, no touchy.
But the evidence for me is there.
I’ve explained why I believe the universe (and any possible pre-existing states the universe has existed in) had a definitive beginning, of which there is no “before”.
I have explained why I believe there is evidence of design in the universe.
I have explained why I believe that it’s more likely something started the universe as opposed to nothing.
I have explained why I believe that something that started the universe would need to be a timeless, immaterial entity, otherwise they are just one more “pre-existing state” of the universe.
I have articulated it all clearly as I can. Your responses appear to have descended in to nothing more than loosely supported assertions along the lines of “but you’re wrong!”. If you have nothing new or further to add to the discussion, then I don’t understand why you keep addressing me in this thread. Do you just want “last post” or something? If so, take it. It’s yours:
Look-if what you want is blind acceptance of your assertions, you are probably not going to find it here. What you label as “evidence” really isn’t acceptable, and your chain of “evidence” seems to provide not answers, but even more questions. I am asking those questions.
Wait, so we don’t know what rules would apply in “no space”, but you apparently know enough to dismiss the possibility of it spontaneously generating a universe without an “entity”.Everyone knows that entities are prohibited by the laws of “no space”.
I’ve actually stated, ad nauseum, that I do not know how things work outside the universe, I merely point out the obvious folly of thinking that it must work the same as existing in three dimensional space. Yet right here on the forum we have people arguing things like “you can not have existence without space!” like they have some special information about existence that the rest of us don’t have.
I merely allow for the possibility of existence outside of space/time. I certainly don’t claim to know whether such an existence is possible, unlike others on the forum.
Those who are claiming to know are providing no evidence - they are the ones relying on assertion.
I “dismiss” (for want of a better word) that nothing caused the universe to come in to existence. Call me crazy!