This sentence is logical gibberish. Let’s say the non-physical creator wants to feel my balls. What does it feel them with?
You missed the point.
I was asked to show evidence that the Creator is immaterial and exists in a timeless state. I was giving an example of what an inferred conclusion is.
What a poorly worded sentence. Cite?
His mouth?
Well, obviously I wouldn’t agree with that.
And you clearly didn’t know what you were talking about.
You are the one making a claim for something existing, not I; the burden of proof is yours. Name an example of something that exists, something that can act, that has NO physical component.
The “laws of time?” What are those.
If you think it has to be finite, you’re wrong. The multiverse (as distinct from the universe) is eternal. It requires no beginning.
Ok, and where did the matrix get its structure/function/complexity?
It’s just shifting the problem sideways.
To use “We can perfectly explain the paintbrush!” as evidence that there aren’t painters is equally poor logic.
Why don’t you give us your special definition of “immaterial”, then.
As you have ASSERTED numerous times, unfortunately, your assertions make no logical sense and cannot soleve your problem.
Wrong.
If we start on the assumption that matter is created by the creator, we can safely in fer the Creator is not composed of matter.
Simply asserting that matter can be explained purely by natural processes (when by your own admission we don’t fully understand matter yet) makes no sense.
She, but yes.
By CalD’s logic here, when evaluating all of the evidence as to what has happened in any instance, one should “allow for the possibility” that a creator magically made it happen. When someone develops lung cancer, do we consider that maybe a creator is behind it rather than a lifetime of smoking cigarettes? Or is a creator only “allowed the possibility” for nice things? That seems rather arbitrary.
Again, I was asked what was the evidence that the Creator exists in a non-physical, timeless state. If my starting assertion is true (matter was created by the creator), then it is a logical inferred conclusion to draw. Responding by disagreeing with the premise is totally missing the point.
First, I was referring to your own claims that God needs no such explanations; and pointing out that a simple quantum effect is a lot more plausible than a God. In fact, virtually anything is more plausible.
And second, one likely explanation would be stability; randomness by it’s nature is unstable. Therefore structure arising from chaos is to be expected.
I think we’re getting Lekatted.
Then what do you suppose your “creator” is composed of, if not matter?
You mean to say, every single natural explanation for the appearance of virtual particles was eliminated, but still you won’t entertain the idea of a supernatural cause?
No; pointing out that your premise is unnecessary and your conclusion impossible isn’t missing the point.
That matter was created by a creator.
Once again, you’re missing the point.
We have no direct evidence that chimps and humans have a common ancestor. We do not have a complete fossil record that shows it, we have never observed it, but rather, we infer it from all the other evidence.
They have an explanation; quantum mechanics. They just don’t have a cause. Not a known one, not an unknown one ( or so the theory seems to say ).
This assumption is not justified by any observable evidence. You need to justify this first assumption before any following inferences are worth any discussion.
Excuse me, “my own admission?” In what post did I admit any such thing? Have you read any of the posts or links explaining exactly where matter comes from?