Originally posted by @apathistAny thoughts on this yet apathist ?
Why do you claim that nature (or even supernature, whatever that is) depends on opinion? The world, with all it's atoms and molecules doesn't slap you in the face, but I do. Am I supernatural?
your next post I hope will give an alternative explanation to the switching of scores of Jerusalem Jews from Saturday Sabbath keeping, to "the breaking of bread" on the first day of the week, the so called "Lord's day" to celebrate His rising from the dead.
Why didn't those vehemently opposed to this new movement among Jerusalem Jews produce the corpse of Jesus to quell their enthusiasm ?
1 edit
Originally posted by @dj2beckerLook, please, dj. Your argument is the very best one I know of. I see it, there is more going on than just atoms bouncing around. This amazing reality has to involve deeper truths.
No but a highly complex spaceship is evidence for the existence of a designer. At least to those with a bit of common sense.
But please do a reality check. If reality REQUIRES a designer, then so does that designer. So you are just counting turtles.
1 edit
Originally posted by @apathistYou don't answer any questions put to you, do you ?
Look, please, dj. Your argument is the very best one I know of. I see it, there is more going on than just atoms bouncing around. This amazing reality [b]has to involve deeper truths.
But please do a reality check. If reality REQUIRES a designer, then so does that designer. So you are just counting turtles.[/b]
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @apathistWhat would be your objection if the existence of an uncaused first cause were suggested?
Look, please, dj. Your argument is the very best one I know of. I see it, there is more going on than just atoms bouncing around. This amazing reality [b]has to involve deeper truths.
But please do a reality check. If reality REQUIRES a designer, then so does that designer. So you are just counting turtles.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by @dj2beckerBecause this weak argument (by Aquinas) was shattered by the simple realisation that 'an endless regress of causes' is actually an answer in itself. In other words (hopefully ones you can understand) If every cause has a cause, there is no need for a 'first cause.' Instead we are left with an infinite regress of causes stretching back in to the infinity of time.
What would be your objection if the existence of an uncaused first cause were suggested?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeOk so if the big bang was caused, what caused it? Why in your mind could the big bang not have been caused by an eternally existing being, i.e God?
Because this weak argument (by Aquinas) was shattered by the simple realisation that 'an endless regress of causes' is actually an answer in itself. In other words (hopefully ones you can understand) If every cause has a cause, there is no need for a 'first cause.' Instead we are left with an infinite regress of causes stretching back in to the infinity of time.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerBig Bang, Big Crunch, Big Bang, Big Crunch.........Ad infinitum.
Ok so if the big bang was caused, what caused it? Why in your mind could the big bang not have been caused by an eternally existing being, i.e God?
(God is just a human construct for those who struggle with the above).
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeBig Bang, Big Crunch because of what?
Big Bang, Big Crunch, Big Bang, Big Crunch.........Ad infinitum.
(God is just a human construct for those who struggle with the above).
Originally posted by @apathistWhy?
Look, please, dj. Your argument is the very best one I know of. I see it, there is more going on than just atoms bouncing around. This amazing reality [b]has to involve deeper truths.
But please do a reality check. If reality REQUIRES a designer, then so does that designer. So you are just counting turtles.[/b]