An unorthodox belief in God.

[Tonus]

He caused parts of himself, that much I know; he created parts of himself, but outside of that little information, I just don't know.

How do you know that he created parts of himself? That sounds as illogical to me as the evolutionary development of consciousness and emotion sound to you. If it's possible to imagine a god who causes himself to become, then it's just as possible to imagine a universe that does the same. Easier, even, since the universe would be less complex than a god that could create one.

[Mister Agenda]

My beliefs mean nothing to you, but are of value to me. There is evidence that cats have 90% of our genes, cows 80%, a mouse 75%, and chickens and fruitflys 60%. In my view, that is evidence that a creator used the same ingredients in many of his creations. Evidence of a mind, a mind that knew what it was doing.

If it's evidence of a mind, it's evidence of a mind with limited imagination, limited intelligence, and limited rsources. Conservation of ingredients or effort is something an omniscient or omnipotent designer would have no reason for...particularly if the results are indistinguishable from what could happen with normal variations combined with natural selection. Heck, even a mortal genetic engineer can design a lifeform that was clearly designed.

[LostLocke]

Cause is another proof of god. There has to be a cause for everything...

Says?.....

[Mister Agenda]

Consciousness must be a spirit, as god must be one. It really has no location in the body, we just think its in our head, because we look through our eyes in retrospect, and think that we are thinking in our heads. There is nothing in the human head but skin and bones; there is no physical organ that we can call consciousness.

Consciousness is our link to god, I think the only link, and it can think for itself and misunderstand that link , kind of become a missing link. I don't view consciousness as emergent from tissue gathered over the years and explained into mental existence by scientific theory.

Again a point in gods direction.

Unsupported assertions can be dismissed out of hand.

[JesusHChrist]

He caused parts of himself, that much I know; he created parts of himself, but outside of that little information, I just don't know.

Why is OK for your god to have always existed and not for the universe (in some form) to have always existed?

Yet another fallacy -- special pleading. Look it up.

Just saying it, is a bare assertion. Meaningless.

All of the reasons you've given for a god existing have names and have been debunked. At the least, if you are going to make these arguments you ought to understand the opposing side. Correct? Otherwise you look quite foolish.

No god argument to date holds up to scrutiny. They are all poor.

[Mister Agenda]

I am suggesting no such thing, in fact I view intelligence as evidence for god, and agree with intelligent research. I have seen absolutely no well researched evidence that proves god does not exist; none! All the evidence I have seen keeps suggesting that he does. Explain to me how intelligence evolved from nothing. Use your science and explain it to me.

I have seen absolutely no well researched evidence that leprechauns don't exist; none! That doesn't convince me that leprechauns exist, but if it doesn't convince you, I'd very much like to know why not.

Of course intelligence didn't evolve from nothing, teams of eternal leprechauns engineered it. If you disagree, please present your reasoning.

[mickiel]

He caused parts of himself, that much I know; he created parts of himself, but outside of that little information, I just don't know.

How do you know that he created parts of himself? That sounds as illogical to me as the evolutionary development of consciousness and emotion sound to you. If it's possible to imagine a god who causes himself to become, then it's just as possible to imagine a universe that does the same. Easier, even, since the universe would be less complex than a god that could create one.

Agreed; I then concede that part of the debate to you, if I can say god created parts of himself, you can say parts of reality created itself. I have read scriptures that reveal god himself saying that he created parts of himself.

[Losty]

I been wrong before, and those places you listed keep putting me out.

Not many places left to go that are not intimidated.
[hr Wrote:

What caused god?

He caused parts of himself, that much I know; he created parts of himself, but outside of that little information, I just don't know.

I did not say that.

[mickiel]

My beliefs mean nothing to you, but are of value to me. There is evidence that cats have 90% of our genes, cows 80%, a mouse 75%, and chickens and fruitflys 60%. In my view, that is evidence that a creator used the same ingredients in many of his creations. Evidence of a mind, a mind that knew what it was doing.

If it's evidence of a mind, it's evidence of a mind with limited imagination, limited intelligence, and limited rsources. Conservation of ingredients or effort is something an omniscient or omnipotent designer would have no reason for...particularly if the results are indistinguishable from what could happen with normal variations combined with natural selection. Heck, even a mortal genetic engineer can design a lifeform that was clearly designed.

I disagree, and I do not view god as " omni" anything. To claim a designer has no need for ingredients, is non sensical to me. god is a creator, he create things and repeatedly uses those things in other creating.

[Mister Agenda]

There was, and is, no need for a tailor. Evolution by natural selection explains it.

What selected evolution and natural selection?

They are brute facts, like 2+2=4. If you have a high-fidelity but imperfect replicator, evolution and natural selection are mathematically inevitable. Computer programs based on this are used to originate useful protein configurations humans may never have thought of.