An unorthodox belief in God.

[mickiel]

Mick, I'm disappointed.

Yesterday I posted a response to you where I specifically pointed out that I, pretty much alone among the people still talking to you, have been refraining from cursing in the hopes that it might cause you to pay attention to what I was saying in the spirit of actually taking the conversation somewhere. That post, along with the point I made in it, and a number of my other posts, was summarily ignored so you could accuse others of "dodging." That's an interesting contrast, don't you think?

In any case, I'd still like an answer to the point I raised there: you say that consciousness is evidence of god, because consciousness could not come from nothing. But didn't god's consciousness come from nothing? It has no designer, like you demand consciousness has to have, right? Even if you say it's eternal, that still means it comes from nothing. So doesn't that mean that you already believed in something that breaks the rules you wanted to set for everyone else, before you posted those rules?

No it does not; god gave himself consciousness; I just can't explain how. The bible describes god as " The beginning and the end", so we can say he has to have some kind of " Eternal beginning", but I doubt VERY seriously if he will ever reveal just how such an impossible thing could be. He IS the beginning, not the big bang, the big god! He IS the fiber of existence and the first of it.

I sure can't explain it.

Oh and thank you for withdrawing your cursing, I will be sure to honor you're every post from now on.

Peace.

No it does not; god gave himself consciousness; I just can't explain how. The bible describes god as " The beginning and the end", so we can say he has to have some kind of " Eternal beginning", but I doubt VERY seriously if he will ever reveal just how such an impossible thing could be. He IS the beginning, not the big bang, the big god! He IS the fiber of existence and the first of it.

I sure can't explain it.

So, if "I don't know," is an acceptable answer for you regarding this question on god without that being a disproof of god, then how come "I don't know," isn't an acceptable answer for a naturalistic explanation without completely discrediting that position to you?

On the one hand, what you've answered with here is a very important answer, because to honestly admit ignorance is the first step to gaining knowledge, and a big part of the scientific method. On the other, I don't understand why you're privileging god explanations, allowing them to be answered with "I don't know," while not extending the same courtesy to atheist or naturalist answers. I mean, in some respects the naturalist "I don't know" is actually stronger than the theist one, because at least the naturalist can point to demonstrably real and readily accessible evidence that might provide some form of answer, right?

Well that's right, but were talking about god man! Were not informed on it; we really don't know much. Science can be cataloged, written down, booked, displayed on media screens, learned in school;

it ain't that way with god!

Its a whole different ball game, whole new standards; goodness, HE makes the standards; he IS the standard; its what a god does! Were not going to ever know everything about god! I mean this being IS life! IS power! IS law! We can't limit him, define him, constrain him, figure him out, we can't interview him, see him, hear him speak,

such a being REDUCES us to " I don't know."