Yeah, felt kind of off. That person could have been the best debater I have seen on this site if they were a little more in tune with how these debates are carried out and more experienced. Not that I am the final judge of anything. That is just my opinion.
Whether God is an all-knowing being, or a thoughtless being non-existent anymore, something had to start the first thing, the first science, and science cannot and will not ever explain the start of science, just as something cannot create itself. Before anything, there was nothing. Something transcendent, existent before anything, had to create the first something. That, we call God.
And how would we know? We claim to know that "something can't create itself." Based on what? What's our foundation to claim a supreme knowledge that something can't do this or that? If there's a non-temporal, non-spatial world of some kind, then who knows what can be done there.
And how would we know? We claim to know that "something can't create itself." Based on what? What's our foundation to claim a supreme knowledge that something can't do this or that? If there's a non-temporal, non-spatial world of some kind, then who knows what can be done there.
Well my understanding would be that it did indeed create its own Self. That Self is us. Though it is through many different reflections, different realms, all of which is within its own right, a God, reflecting the first God... yet there are not many, but One. That is the holographic nature of God.
Whether God is an all-knowing being, or a thoughtless being non-existent anymore, something had to start the first thing, the first science, and science cannot and will not ever explain the start of science, just as something cannot create itself. Before anything, there was nothing. Something transcendent, existent before anything, had to create the first something. That, we call God.