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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
One that does things for no reason?
Or exist as a paradox.One that does things for no reason?
You're right: god should have given us teleportation.
We wouldn't know God's reasoning. (If such a God did exist)
Only if that's what we think God did. If God's reason was to create a universe full of life (of which we haven't discovered yet, but that could be because of our flawed methods of searching rather than its existence) and that we're just one small part of all that life. It won't put it in the center of creation as Creationists want to, but it wouldn't be an irrational God. Only if we assume God's purpose to be something that we find irrational will that God-image be irrational. (I think) If we try to make God rational (new definition of God instead of the old and ancient definitions), it's easier to have a rational belief.
It is. That's why God (if there is one) would have other purposes or thoughts about the Universe than we commonly think.
Unless we can invent the mass effect drive using dark matter...
This is absurd.
He made it mathematically impossible. No one knows if it is physically impossible.
Vilenkin does not argue to a theistic conclusion. He argues to a natural finite without natural cause or explanation. He additionally argues for the impossibility of the major infinite universe and multiverse concepts. I do not think he is a theist and as a cosmologist does not speculate on God. Now the site may have done so, and Craig is often used because he is brilliant and a theist. That site also contained posts by the hundreds that hashed out all aspects of the article. I apologize that I just can't get to and respond to all your claims. I am one of the few orthodox Christians on the site and so am the target for most of the atheists and hard agnostics. I just can't get to everything. Can you give me your post # or research that sites posts for the response.
You can for faith claims but I am not really doing so directly. What we know of think we know is that the cause of the universe must be more powerful that all the combined energy in it which is unimaginably powerful (even the singularity is given as almost infinite in power by secular scientists), It must be unimaginably intelligent, it must be non-material, it must be outside of time and space. Now that resembles the God of the Bible far more than any natural entity, especially since the cause created nature and was not natural. There might be a semantic technicality in there somewhere but nothing I said is unreasonable. I am not making proof claim, only best fit claims.
I will stop repeating it when it is granted in responses. If you agree with the above the only other issue is whether nature is finite or infinite. All evidence suggests it is finite. Given those two I am so near a proof for a God that I could rest my case. However I can never get those two things conceded at the same time. So I must relentlessly state them over and over.
I am not arguing for a known. I am arguing for the best explanation for evidence and or testimony.
No God can be experienced in the exact same way as love, pleasure, beauty, etc.... Why is only God eliminated from the extremely long list of non-empirical experiences?
That was stated clumsily. I meant modes of perception. Math is a mode, touch is a mode, philosophy is a mode, and experience is a mode?
The cause of nature. Morality, Being born again. Miracles.
It is not improbable in experience. It is less frequent. Quantum physics had no known examples a hundred years or so ago. Yet it is as real as Newtonian physics. The frequency of perception is not a limitation. You are also talking about frequency of natural occurrences. Miracles are not natural occurrences. Confidence is subjective and not exactly a science. Their have been an inexhaustible list of betrayals of confidence. This event is decided by strength of testimony alone. It is strong in the opinions of those most capable of judging as we have been debating. Confidence is not directly relatable to frequency in many cases and not related to truth in many cases. Confidence many times is based on more preference than anything else. Cognitive dissonance is one powerful force. I have read studies that indicated that a person who is actually wrong is less willing to admit it based on the amount of evidence supplied. That is a minority of cases but so frequent as to be indicative.
Probabilistic calculus is an ambiguous animal and that is why I do not use it but I have seen it used to prove Gospel events. However lets say it is highly inaccurate. If it returns a 98% probable figure then surely the worst case scenario is 60% 0r 70%. I will supply some of it for curiosity if you wish.
Not necessarily. You can use smokers to cook food on a electrical stove top. The smoker smokes without a fire. Heat, yes. Fire, no.
