RE: Q about arguments for God's existence.
June 20, 2015 at 4:34 pm
(This post was last modified: June 20, 2015 at 4:39 pm by Catholic_Lady.)
(June 20, 2015 at 5:15 am)Stimbo Wrote: Here's the thing, Cat Lady. You've stated that there is no evidence for your pet god and that it all comes down to faith (and then knock me for having "more faith" in something that actually has physical evidence, but that's by the by). The point I'm aiming for is that you've also made statements which run counter to that, about the (super)nature of this god, its powers and actions. For example, what makes you call it a 'he' and how do you know it created the Universe? Not to mention the question I already asked, by what mechanism is it supposed to have done so?
1. I didn't knock you for it, neither would not do something like that. I only showed you that we are on equal footing at this point given the fact that we don't have proof.
2. Is there physical evidence that either
a. something could come from absolutely nothing
or
b. something could ever just always have existed
3. I call it a He for practicality since that is what is done. But you are correct that God has no sex. Your next question pretty much delves into "why do you believe in God" which we have already covered in a different thread and has no short/easy answer. The answer to the question after that is, by supernatural mechanisms that we do now know of and cannot explain, as it is above the laws of our natural world.
(June 20, 2015 at 5:22 am)IATIA Wrote:(June 19, 2015 at 11:46 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: How would you explain it?
It just is. No reason, no creation, no design. Basically the same as your god, but without the baggage.
Just to clarify, you mean certain concrete things in nature have just always existed, therfore they did not just appear at some point in time?
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh