If the Big Bang was proved false what alternatives would evolutionist have?

[gnostic]

Yeah well.....reasoning doesn't halt, just because the experiment won't fit in the petri dish.
Logic doesn't fail....when the numbers aren't large enough.

Neither a creator god, nor creationism is logical.

They are both nothing more than superstition, based on ignorance or unthinking fear.

And faith is not logical, just ignorance or naivety of one who don't understand the natural world, and they have to rely on myths of God.

Sorry, but how is the Abrahamic deity any better than the Egyptian Ra, or the Sumerian Enlil, the Ugaritic Ba'al, the Greek Zeus or the Norse Odin?

He is not, because he nothing more than a myth.

 

[Thief]

Neither a creator god, nor creationism is logical.

They are both nothing more than superstition, based on ignorance or unthinking fear.

And faith is not logical, just ignorance or naivety of one who don't understand the natural world, and they have to rely on myths of God.

Sorry, but how is the Abrahamic deity any better than the Egyptian Ra, or the Sumerian Enlil, the Ugaritic Ba'al, the Greek Zeus or the Norse Odin?

He is not, because he nothing more than a myth.

Too much assumption on your part....no fear on mine.
Logic?.....yes there is.
Substance is NOT 'self' starting.

If you think so....then your logic and sense of reality is compromised.

 

[gnostic]

Oh c'mon.....you're not really lost over this......................are you?

That's just great. Once again, you are to your usual habit - evading the questions. I am asking to explain, but you seek to evade my questions with a question of your own.

Ok then, don't answer them, because I don't want to play this game again. Just don't write to me again.

 

[Thief]

That's just great. Once again, you are to your usual habit - evading the questions. I am asking to explain, but you seek to evade my questions with a question of your own.

Ok then, don't answer them, because I don't want to play this game again. Just don't write to me again.

Same to you!

The scheme of thought was simple.
You can't (or won't) follow.

 

[gnostic]

Same to you!

The scheme of thought was simple.
You can't (or won't) follow.

I have asked for clarification, you evade.

We have on this road before, where you don't give me straight answers. Go play with yourself or someone else.

 

[Thief]

So for others more willing and able....

Someone had to be First.

 

[fantome profane]

.
Substance is NOT 'self' starting.

Great, so now what you need to do is show that this thing you call "spirit" is "self starting".

 

[Thief]

Great, so now what you need to do is show that this thing you call "spirit" is "self starting".

I can deal with it.
Spirit...not having a physical form....is not subject to physical law.
Substance (as in creation) needs a push.

Spirit would be the Source.

 

[fantome profane]

I can deal with it.
Spirit...not having a physical form....is not subject to physical law.
Substance (as in creation) needs a push.

Spirit would be the Source.

That is a claim you are making. Now show that it is true.

 

[Thief]

That is a claim you are making. Now show that it is true.

Show me a piece of any substance that moves by it's 'self'.

 

[fantome profane]

Show me a piece of any substance that moves by it's 'self'.

Show me piece of any of this thing you call "spirit" that moves by its "self".


To make it easier, start by just showing me a piece of this thing you call "spirit".

 

[Thief]

Show me piece of any of this thing you call "spirit" that moves by its "self".


To make it easier, start by just showing me a piece of this thing you call "spirit".

Won't be easy....you gotta do it for yourself.
Go to the mirror.....and look.......real hard.

Anybody home?

 

[fantome profane]

Won't be easy....you gotta do it for yourself.
Go to the mirror.....and look.......real hard.

Anybody home?

In other words, no. You can't show that such a thing exists, much less that it must be "first".

 

[`mud]

hey Thief,
you said:
"Show me a piece of any substance that moves by it's 'self'."
doesn't "it is self" describe your God ? Like "I am what I am"
Isn't God a substance ? Does He move by Himself ?
Just asking...I'm sure you will explain.
~
'mud

 

[gnostic]

Isn't God a substance ? Does He move by Himself ?
Just asking...I'm sure you will explain.

If he does, then that will be the first.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So for others more willing and able....

Someone had to be First.

Not only did Ockham exclude empirical evidence for the human soul, he also categorically excluded any philosophical evidence.

When you say "had to", you are employing a logic of being forced, it is a form of philosophical evidence. Force precludes choosing, therefore you have no faith, because you do not reach the conclusion by choosing it.

From Ockham and the Christianity of the time stems democracy and science. As you can see now still, the real practical defenders of democracy in the world, are those who insist that only faith that is chosen is meaningful faith. Faith that is forced by the government, or some other authority, is not genuine. And faith forced by some philosophy of "had to" is also not genuine faith, simply because it is also a forced conclusion. This "had to" philosophy opens up the way for the government to force people to be religious.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I can deal with it.
Spirit...not having a physical form....is not subject to physical law.
Substance (as in creation) needs a push.

Spirit would be the Source.

yes traditional religion......creator and creation, what chooses and what is chosen, opinion is relevant to the first, facts are relevant to the second. The spirit chooses, a decision connects the spiritual domain to the material domain.

In the mathematics about choosing, there is no mathematical symbol for what it is that makes the decision turn out the way it does. Left and right are the options, then next left is chosen, so goes the maths about choosing. There is no need to reference what it is that chooses, for the mathematics to function. The mathematics is complete without any such reference. Which means that it is a matter of opinion what makes a decision turn out the way it does. It is an oppurtunity to express your emotions, and form an opinion about it, it is the foundation of all subjectivity.

 

[Thief]

yes traditional religion......creator and creation, what chooses and what is chosen, opinion is relevant to the first, facts are relevant to the second. The spirit chooses, a decision connects the spiritual domain to the material domain.

In the mathematics about choosing, there is no mathematical symbol for what it is that makes the decision turn out the way it does. Left and right are the options, then next left is chosen, so goes the maths about choosing. There is no need to reference what it is that chooses, for the mathematics to function. The mathematics is complete without any such reference. Which means that it is a matter of opinion what makes a decision turn out the way it does. It is an oppurtunity to express your emotions, and form an opinion about it, it is the foundation of all subjectivity.

Just clarity....are you saying ....Spirit first and in control?
or
Substance rules and spirit follows?

 

[Thief]

Not only did Ockham exclude empirical evidence for the human soul, he also categorically excluded any philosophical evidence.

When you say "had to", you are employing a logic of being forced, it is a form of philosophical evidence. Force precludes choosing, therefore you have no faith, because you do not reach the conclusion by choosing it.

From Ockham and the Christianity of the time stems democracy and science. As you can see now still, the real practical defenders of democracy in the world, are those who insist that only faith that is chosen is meaningful faith. Faith that is forced by the government, or some other authority, is not genuine. And faith forced by some philosophy of "had to" is also not genuine faith, simply because it is also a forced conclusion. This "had to" philosophy opens up the way for the government to force people to be religious.

You say the logic is forced if it makes you 'feel' any better.
But in mind and heart ......Spirit......Someone had to be first.

 

[Thief]

hey Thief,
you said:
"Show me a piece of any substance that moves by it's 'self'."
doesn't "it is self" describe your God ? Like "I am what I am"
Isn't God a substance ? Does He move by Himself ?
Just asking...I'm sure you will explain.
~
'mud

I would ask you to make a decision.
Spirit first or substance.

All else follows what you place in the lead.
Spirit first?.....you might survive your last breath.

Substance first.....and you go in the box and into the ground.
Eternal darkness is NOT a philosophical idea.
It is physically real.