For the love of god, can someone explain who created god?

[savagewind]

That realm that is not composed of strawmen and
falsehoods?

See? Isn't that the same as calling me stupid?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What reality?

The reality that we can observe every day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If the physical universe need have no creator, then why do people say that if we believe that it does then The Creator needs a creator also?

The physical universe is present and real. Correct? It has no creator. Correct?

The point is that claiming the universe needs a creator is a claim that cannot be supported. By the same "logic" that demands a creator for the universe there is a need for the creator to have a creator. There may be a creator, but demanding the existence of one with bad logic leads to conclusions that theists tend not to like.

The only reason that atheists bring up this argument is to point out how bad the "the universe needs a creator" is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

See? Isn't that the same as calling me stupid?

No. Why would you think that is the case?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Stupid is as stupid does.

The fundamentalist churches that promote creationism
draw their members from the lower rungs of the socio-economic-education ladder.

Atheists tend to be far better educated than creationists.

We have yet to see any creationist make a sensible,
educated objection to evolution.

Better educated is not necessarily more intelligent. Though I do agree that generally you are almost certainly correct. I hold out hope, perhaps foolishly, that science deniers can learn. At one point I opposed AGW, largely due to a personal dislike of Al Gore. I came to see my errors. I still do not like Al Gore, I think that he is a terrible representative for the concept Flying in private jets is certainly not "walking the walk". Having a house that is less efficient than George Bush's is not doing so either. But his feet of clay do not refute the concept. It merely caused me to be a bit slow on the uptake.

There are examples out there that do both walk the walk and talk the talk. Al Gore's religious education and political experience enables him to be a better vocal mouthpiece than others. But that is the end.

And since creationism was shown to be wrong over 100 years ago I would be surprised at this point to see a sensible argument against evolution.

 

[savagewind]

No. Why would you think that is the case?

Because I think that being dishonest and avoiding the subject are both stupid. Don't you?

 

[savagewind]

..... since creationism was shown to be wrong over 100 years ago I would be surprised at this point to see a sensible argument against evolution.

That there is A Creator behind it all has never been shown to be wrong. How could it? The thread isn't about the universe appearing in 144 hours. It is about the possibility that God has no creator. Like according to you guys, the universe has no creator.

 

[Audie]

See? Isn't that the same as calling me stupid?

People who know me dont have to interpret-interpret,, I say what I mean.

 

[savagewind]

People who know me dont have to interpret-interpret,, I say what I mean.

OK. I see you have just 123 posts. And, I should know you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because I think that being dishonest and avoiding the subject are both stupid. Don't you?

I would say that it is not very wise. "Stupid" would be going too far In my book.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That there is A Creator behind it all has never been shown to be wrong. How could it? The thread isn't about the universe appearing in 144 hours. It is about the possibility that God has no creator. Like according to you guys, the universe has no creator.

You appear to be very confused, or you are being dishonest. You quoted out of context and tried to put a false meaning on my pist. What did you say about avoiding the subject?

 

[Apologetics]

That's what's called a non-sequitur. Your argument is basically:

1) Our bodies and the way they function are complex.
2) ???????????
3) Therefore, we are designed.

The question is why do you think "complexity" is necessarily a result of design? What makes you think complex, organic, biological systems cannot arise through natural processes?

​

It's not "God vs. chance". "Chance" is not the only alternative to "intent".


The difference is whether or not you're willing to admit you don't know, or erroneously Your implying that in your opinion, Im incorrect. I would rather assert, that I see something you cannot see, that everything came from an eternal creator. One is a guess based on nothing but speculation Definition : the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence. The firm evidence I present is from both an intellectual point of view and empirical . Neither is it a quess and/or wishful thinking, the other is an honest Your assuming that my conclusion our not honest response that leaves room for further inquiry. Further Inquiries at one point come to a concluding answer Which do you think is better?

I have conducted the further inquiry and have made an intellectual conclusion


Here is what we both know that is certain and verifiable

1.We breath and live
2.The functions of our body are extremely unbelievably complicated
3.We all at one point will cease to live.
4. All the material in the universe did not come into existence of its own accord.

Beyond that is the following:

My intelligence see's the hand of a designer/creator in all the complexity of life. A Maker
You see the same complexity,knowing full well it came to be, somehow. Ruling out the impossibility of a greater being beyond mankind.

2 different paths

 

[Apologetics]

Stupid is as stupid does.

The fundamentalist churches that promote creationism
draw their members from the lower rungs of the socio-economic-education ladder.

Atheists tend to be far better educated than creationists.

We have yet to see any creationist make a sensible,
educated objection to evolution.

1. Where did all the material in the universe come from?
2.Where did all the information in the DNA come from ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have conducted the further inquiry and have made an intellectual conclusion


Here is what we both know that is certain and verifiable

1.We breath and live
2.The functions of our body are extremely unbelievably complicated
3.We all at one point will cease to live.

Good so far.

4. All the material in the universe did not come into existence of its own accord.

Oops, and you were doing so well. Can you support this claim properly? Physicists, the people that are experts on matter and energy, do not appear to agree with you.

Beyond that is the following:

My intelligence see's the hand of a designer/creator in all the complexity of life. A Maker
You see the same complexity,knowing full well it came to be, somehow. Ruling out the impossibility of a greater being beyond mankind.

2 different paths

Again, can you support this claim with valid evidence? So far no creationist has. It appears to be wishful thinking only.

 

[Subduction Zone]

1. Where did all the material in the universe come from?

From "nothing":

2.Where did all the information in the DNA come from ?

What "information"? We know how new traits evolve, is that what you mean? "Information" appears to be a highly prejudicial term as you want to use it.

 

[Apologetics]

In the beginning he says 3 things occupy the universe

1. Familiar matter what we can see.
2. Dark Matter
3. Dark energy

So he saying the universe according to current theory is fabricated by those 3 elements
He ends by says

From "nothing":

What "information"? We know how new traits evolve, is that what you mean? "Information" appears to be a highly prejudicial term as you want to use it.

DNA Is packed with information. RNA reads the DNA and starts the process of producing that information . Example. The DNA contains color for skin, eyes blood ect. It has the information to properly form a complicated heart and circulatory system. It has the information to produce a immune system ect. Thats all highly intelligent information that was put thier.

How did that highly intelligent information get thier . The logical answer is from a designer/Maker.

When you pass by an empty commercial lot one day. And then 6 months later you pass it again and find that it now has a building erected on it and a booming business. You immediately say wow some body built that pretty fast. What you never will ever thing or say is wow that came of its own accord out of no where. Of course you dont . Because you know thats not logical. Buildings are built by some contractor.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In the beginning he says 3 things occupy the universe

1. Familiar matter what we can see.
2. Dark Matter
3. Dark energy

So he saying the universe according to current theory is fabricated by those 3 elements
He ends by says

You did not have time to watch that much less understand it. You made a claim that I asked you support with evidence and I gave you a link where your error was explained to you.

DNA Is packed with information. RNA reads the DNA and starts the process of producing that information . Example. The DNA contains color for skin, eyes blood ect. It has the information to properly form a complicated heart and circulatory system. It has the information to produce a immune system ect. Thats all highly intelligent information that was put thier.

How did that highly intelligent information get thier . The logical answer is from a designer/Maker.

When you pass by an empty commercial lot one day. And then 6 months later you pass it again and find that it now has a building erected on it and a booming business. You immediately say wow some body built that pretty fast. What you never will ever thing or say is wow that came of its own accord out of no where. Of course you dont . Because you know thats not logical. Buildings are built by some contractor.

Sorry, terms that are not properly defined are worthless in a debate. Once again we understand how new "information" enters the genome. No intelligence is needed as yet. You are not using logic, you are using emotion.

 

[Apologetics]

Good so far.



Oops, and you were doing so well. Can you support this claim properly? Physicists, the people that are experts on matter and energy, do not appear to agree with you.



Again, can you support this claim with valid evidence? So far no creationist has. It appears to be wishful thinking only.

The evidence is over whelming We have highly complex intelligent information contained in DNA. That alone is evidence of a designer/Maker.

DNA Is packed with information. RNA reads the DNA and starts the process of producing that information . Example. The DNA contains color for skin, eyes blood ect. It has the information to properly form a complicated heart and circulatory system. It has the information to produce a immune system ect. Thats all highly intelligent information that was put thier.

How did that highly intelligent information get thier . The logical answer is from a designer/Maker.

When you pass by an empty commercial lot one day. And then 6 months later you pass it again and find that it now has a building erected on it and a booming business. You immediately say wow some body built that pretty fast. What you never will ever thing or say is wow that came of its own accord out of no where. Of course you dont . Because you know thats not logical. Buildings are built by some contractor.

This is the whole point about this topic :

You cant see what I see.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The evidence is over whelming We have highly complex intelligent information contained in DNA. That alone is evidence of a designer/Maker.

Nope, sorry, we don't. If you want to claim it is "intelligent" the burden of proof is upon you. Creationists make this claim but never can seem to be able to support it.

DNA Is packed with information. RNA reads the DNA and starts the process of producing that information . Example. The DNA contains color for skin, eyes blood ect. It has the information to properly form a complicated heart and circulatory system. It has the information to produce a immune system ect. Thats all highly intelligent information that was put thier.

How did that highly intelligent information get thier . The logical answer is from a designer/Maker.

When you pass by an empty commercial lot one day. And then 6 months later you pass it again and find that it now has a building erected on it and a booming business. You immediately say wow some body built that pretty fast. What you never will ever thing or say is wow that came of its own accord out of no where. Of course you dont . Because you know thats not logical. Buildings are built by some contractor.

This is the whole point about this topic :

You cant see what I see.

You see what is not there. If it was there you could support your claims.

Do you have anything more than handwaving? A claim that is made with a handwave can be refuted by a handwave. Once again, what is your evidence?

 

[Apologetics]

You did not have time to watch that much less understand it. You made a claim that I asked you support with evidence and I gave you a link where your error was explained to you.



Sorry, terms that are not properly defined are worthless in a debate. Once again we understand how new "information" enters the genome. No intelligence is needed as yet. You are not using logic, you are using emotion.

You still dont get it. You simply caint see.

I heard that about 90 % of or matter in our bodies comes from the empty space between the quarts,. So That is suppose to prove that matter comes from nothing right.!

Dont be so naive. Its just a theory that the space is empty. In other words our technology is not sophisticated enough to detect what is in that supposed empty space. You know before we had atom smasher where they collide atoms and see what happens when they collide. The science community was unaware of what made up a nuetron and protons until 1968. So wait awhile maybe in your life time youll hear an announcement from some science community that they discovered particles in the empty space.