Will you accept that no sentient entity cause the universe to come in to existence?
“Living outside the universe”, “no space”, “different rules in no space”, “immaterial entities living in no space(?!?)”, “immaterial entities effecting material objects”-these are all assertions you have made in this thread. All we are doing is questioning your improbable assertions, and when we do so you provide as an answer yet another improbable assertion.
Can you accept that the universe might always have existed, in some form or another?
Have you followed the thread?
God help me I’ve tried.
That’s cheeky, Czarcasm.
I have merely explained why I believe it’s possible that a timeless, immaterial entity designed and created the universe. I pointed out back in my first post that I am not completely convinced, but merely inclined to believe.
However, you, among others, have asserted that what I propose is impossible. Here is what you wrote just a few posts back: “By the way, even if your impossible entity existed”… my entity is impossible? Please prove that, Czarcasm, or else you are relying on the same baseless assertions that you are accusing me of making. And if the best you’ve got is pointing out (again) that inside the universe, such things aren’t possible, instead spend your time figuring out the glaring flaw in that logic.
What I wrote in post #362 wasn’t “cheeky”, it was an accurate description of what you have asserted in this thread. I can show you exactly where you made these assertions if you wish.
And yet again, we have the religionist’s Double Standard of Evidence. You are satisfied with suppositions and unfounded assertions when it comes to the metaphysical, but you demand, not evidence, but proof that none of your unsupported assertions are true.
And now you need to answer from whence this timeless immaterial entity came from. If you aren’t comfortable with the universe coming from nothing, why are you comfortable with a creator who comes from nothing?
Here is evidence that your immaterial entity cannot effect material objects.
Here is the reason your immaterial entity stiil cannot effect material objects even if she/he/it lived in Magicland…oops, I mean “No Space”.
Because He’s timeless, immaterial, and lives in a place that isn’t a place because there’s no space there and He’s super smart and all powerful- neener, neener, neener.
It seems to me, that any believer can be sure of their beliefs, it is just beliefs, and not dealing with facts. I once heard a Rabbi explain it that way one day on TV,he said" That is what faith is all about…belief".
And I have no problem with this(as long as they keep their beliefs personal, and not try to make them mandatory for others). But when try to assert that, using misapplied terms and bogus definitions, that science and logic support their beliefs, I feel a need to question.
Let’s take a look at these links, shall we?
If you can’t see these statements for the unbacked assertions that they are, then it is fruitless even attempting to continue this conversation.
Not sure why you’re presuming the entity I am proposing at any point has “stepped in” to the universe. Possibly because otherwise, you don’t have an argument. Possibly because unbacked assertions are the way that you roll here in GD. Whatever your motive, it sure wasn’t anything I have ever claimed.
In order for a timeless entity to come in to existence, it needs to, at some point, not exist.
Given that the deity I believe in did not, at any point, not exist, I have no charge left to answer from your post.
Czarcasm, I am tired of having to respond to your endless unbacked assertions.
If you think existence is impossible without having space, time and matter, then please show some evidence.
To avoid wasting more time, understand that unsupported assertions such as “existence inside three dimensional space/time is the only possible form of existence, and I know this for a fact so don’t question me” will not be accepted.
Arguing whether existence outside of space/time is possible on the grounds that you’ve only ever witnessed and understood existence from within space/time is likewise just plain silly, and that kind of “reasoning” is best left for your debates with young earth creationists or those who reject evolution, or believe the Bible is literally true.
So drumroll… will Czarcasm produce some evidence that existence outside of space/time is not possible? Or will he just baselessly reassert, again, that such existence is not possible, and to hell with presenting any evidence to back up this claim!
Tune in soon to find out!
Could there be any finer example of cognitive dissonance in only two sentences?
I don’t understand. What are the two contradictory ideas that you’re seeing?
If you (Czarcasm, or anyone else) do indeed think that existence—or at least the kind of existence that allows an entity to effect/affect material things—is impossible without having space, time, and matter, I may be able to disprove this by offering, as a counterexample, the relationship of an author to his or her literary creations.
From the perspective of Middle Earth, for example, J.R.R. Tolkien is “immaterial.” Tolkien does not exist at any particular point of Middle Earth space or time. But you wouldn’t say that Tolkien had no effect on Middle Earth.
I’m not sure how good a counterexample this is. You may object that, really, it’s Middle Earth that’s immaterial, not Tolkien. But whether or not my example holds up logically, it does, at least, help me break through a barrier against imagining how an entity outside the material world could have an effect on it.
It seems to me like what you’re doing is affirming the consequent.
But Kelly’s second sentence that you quoted isn’t Q; it’s ~Q.
(And modus tollens is a perfectly valid form of argument.)