dislike atheism

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

"What created us" being...?

Is that a typo or are you just bad at grammar?
Perhaps you meant to say:
'What Being created us?'
to which even in kindergarten they know the answer is:
God!

 

[Jesster]

Even in the most banal materialism, your parents did not create you.
In this ideology you are a consequence of electromagnetic reactions between chemicals.
Your parents had no choice in the matter, they do not even exist more than as chemical
reactions between atoms. They and you are no more than animals mindlessly obeying
their genetic instincts to fornicate and breed as much as possible.

Unless you think there is more to life than that?

That depends on what you mean by 'create'. Does it always involve a conscious effort from start to finish? The common dictionary term is "to bring into existence". In this sense, I create my fingernails. My parents also created me.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

And nobody says we did. But that doesn't mean an intelligence created us. We are caused, but not created.

Post #7 clearly says that she reckons her parents created her.
Perhaps you are in a state of solipsism such that you do not read properly?

 

[syo]

Essence is what there is. everything we see or we don't ''see'' has essence.

ethereal is an adjective about the essence of gods. the essence of gods is different than us, it is ethereal, which means of not mortal men, that's how i understand it. the ethereal essence of god has no ''face'', which means we can't see it or measure it. the ethereal essence is the logic behind the universe, and it connects everything inside the universe. that's why everything in the universe has it's place.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I deny that there is a little green man made of straw living inside your skull making you say silly things.

Such a poor fail. But then logic may be beyond you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

yes, i do that. let me explain the terms, give me a moment.

I have patience. It is better to take your time rather than to go around in circles.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

That depends on what you mean by 'create'. Does it always involve a conscious effort from start to finish? The common dictionary term is "to bring into existence". In this sense, I create my fingernails. My parents also created me.

To 'bring into existence' implies a willful conscious effort.
Materialism claims that free-will is an illusion and so there can never be creation of any sort.
Your fingernail is then said to be chemical reaction to other chemical reactions, and nothing more.
You are nothing more than chemicals - and thus there is no reason to respect your mind or existence.
You cannot die, any more than a stone dies when it is crushed into sand or dust.
To the materialist, you are just a lump of flesh to be sold to the highest bidder
or be recycled into used parts by the dominant animal in society.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Such a poor fail. But then logic may be beyond you.

Ad hominem?
So soon in the discussion?
Are you denying something that does not exist?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Essence is what there is. everything we see or we don't ''see'' has essence.

ethereal is an adjective about the essence of gods. the essence of gods is different than us, it is ethereal, which means of not mortal men, that's how i understand it. the ethereal essence of god has no ''face'', which means we can't see it or measure it. the ethereal essence is the logic behind the universe, and it connects everything inside the universe. that's why everything in the universe has it's place.

You should have taken longer. Now you contradict yourself and say that the essence of gods is not he same as your first definition. All you have is handwaving here and no clear definition.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ad hominem?
So soon in the discussion?
Are you denying something that does not exist?

No, an observation. Your post had an unsupported assumption in it. That is why it failed. Your inability to see that indicates that logic may be beyond you. No ad hom there.

ETA: And let's not forget a bit of hypocrisy on your part. Your first post here had an ad hom in it.

 

[syo]

You should have taken longer. Now you contradict yourself and say that the essence of gods is not he same as your first definition. All you have is handwaving here and no clear definition.

my first definition? let me try again.

 

[Jesster]

To 'bring into existence' implies a willful conscious effort.

No

Materialism claims that free-will is an illusion and so there can never be creation of any sort.

No. Also, when did materialism become the topic? Don't distract things more than they already are.

Your fingernail is then said to be chemical reaction to other chemical reactions, and nothing more.

That is what caused me to create my fingernails. You are confusing cause and create now.

You are nothing more than chemicals - and thus there is no reason to respect your mind or existence.

More accurately, I am the sum of the chemicals that I am made of. If you don't respect that though, then please bother someone else you do respect.

You cannot die, any more than a stone dies when it is crushed into sand or dust.
To the materialist, you are just a lump of flesh to be sold to the highest bidder
or be recycled into used parts by the dominant animal in society.

The chemicals I am made of will remain, but the sum of them that make me will be altered to a state we label "death". You are confusing terms again.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Is that a typo or are you just bad at grammar?
Perhaps you meant to say:
'What Being created us?'
to which even in kindergarten they know the answer is:
God!

Note the placement of the quotes. "What created us" was meant to be a stand-alone entity/subject. I can see how you missed it - you do have to be fairly familiar with punctuation. The ellipsis is also a big giveaway. It could have very well said:

"What created us" being... what?

Asking "What is the "WHAT" that created us?"

 

[syo]

essence is what there is and essence is god. we are part of god so we also have essence but our essence is different than god's. god is ethereal essence, and i describe what ethereal is above.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

To 'bring into existence' implies a willful conscious effort.

No

Yes.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Note the placement of the quotes. "What created us" was meant to be a stand-alone entity/subject. I can see how you missed it - you do have to be fairly familiar with punctuation. The ellipsis is also a big giveaway. It could have very well said:

"What created us" being... what?

Asking "What is the "WHAT" that created us?"

To which you may care to offer an answer rather than go blah-blah-blah.
And a reason for you answer would also be required.

 

[Jesster]

Yes.

No

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

No

And I made that willfully and creatively.
See?
God exists in all things.
A stone cannot create because it has no mind or soul or will to be creative.

 

[Jesster]

And I made that willfully and creatively.
See?
God exists in all things.
A stone cannot create because it has no mind or soul or will to be creative.

More claims. Please provide evidence to your claims. Why do you think there is a god? Why do you think anything has a soul?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

More claims. Please provide evidence to your claims. Why do you think there is a god? Why do you think anything has a soul?

I just did.
Creativity implies a free will to be Creative.
A stone does not debate its potential survival after it becomes sand.

There are numerous arguments that are only denied by those whose
subconscious guilt makes them wish that their sins are not going to
come back at them after death.

I am not sure what your areas of interest are.
But Aquinas' argument from design cannot be denied by a person
who is being honest with themselves about sin and guilt.