• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

`mud

`mud

Just old
Premium Member
Someone said:
" 'Spirit' is everywhere....'substance' is contained."
A lot like the void and the singularity, and the void is nothingness.
But the 'substance' does evolve, doesn't it, and the 'void' dissapears.
Strange connection I find there, the 'substance' to be only here,
and the 'spirit' isn't.
~
To hell with the angels on pin points, I'll gladly be a memory.
~
'mud
 
M

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
Thief said:
Just clarity....are you saying ....Spirit first and in control?
or
Substance rules and spirit follows?
Click to expand...

I am saying that the spirit rules, you are saying the spirit is subservient to your logic of what has to be first.

If you imagine the universe is in a state of a singularity, then flick away the singularity too, then it is solely a matter of opinion what you are left with, facts then do not apply at all anymore. The laws of nature do not apply without any nature. It is equally right to say no spirit exists, as it is right to say the spirit exists, because to arrive at an opinion you must choose, and for choosing you require alternatives both of which can be chosen.
 
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Mohammad Nur Syamsu said:
I am saying that the spirit rules, you are saying the spirit is subservient to your logic of what has to be first.

If you imagine the universe is in a state of a singularity, then flick away the singularity too, then it is solely a matter of opinion what you are left with, facts then do not apply at all anymore. The laws of nature do not apply without any nature. It is equally right to say no spirit exists, as it is right to say the spirit exists, because to arrive at an opinion you must choose, and for choosing you require alternatives both of which can be chosen.
Click to expand...

Reduce all to a singular 'point'.
At that 'point' you have no form.......all is void.

The Creator precedes the creation.
 
M

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
Thief said:
Reduce all to a singular 'point'.
At that 'point' you have no form.......all is void.

The Creator precedes the creation.
Click to expand...

That is right, but the opinion can be that the spiritual domain is empty. Whether that opinion is moral is another issue. And there is then no void, no nothing or zero. And then from the empty spiritual domain the universe can be created. That is still logically valid, because the logical validity of an opinion just depends on that the conclusion is chosen, and that the result of the decision is about what chooses.

You are just trying to be lazy by making the existence of God the creator into a sort of fact by saying God the creator "had to" exist. You want to sustain your belief on the logic of having to exist, without mustering up the emotion necessary for faith. One can say God "has to" exist as a moral standard, that one should not choose the conclusion that the spiritual domain is empty. Just as well as it is immoral to say a person does not have any emotions, while the opinion that somebody does not have any emotions is still logically valid.
 
`mud

`mud

Just old
Premium Member
Theif said:
"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"
If you also said:
"Reduce all to a singular 'point'.
At that 'point' you have no form.......all is void.
The Creator precedes the creation. "
~
If all is void and the 'point' is substance with no form,
then where is god to start the creation.
You said God precedes creation, was God the void ?
~
Confusing am you
~
'mud
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top