Logically, agnosticism is the most rational position

[JustWondering]

No. My knowledge is insignificant. I consult the Holy Books only. My knowledge is limited and imperfect. God's knowledge and that of His Messengers is all knowing and perfect.

Except when they claim the sun circles the earth, or that semen is produced from a drop of fluid excreted from between the back and ribs, or that the sun sets in a muddy bog, or that disease can be cured by performing a ritual that involves standing in a stream with two birds, or makes predictions that don't come true, or contradicts itself. Yea, the knowledge from your holy books is perfect, except when its not.

 

[loverofhumanity]

You didn't answer my question. Surely god is much more complex then a painting or loaf of bread, right? Forget the created and creator stuff for a second. Why do you think it's more logical for a universe creating entity that is more complex then the universes it creates just existing is more plausible than a universe itself just existing? Do you even have a logic reason for that belief?

Because the universe does not have the power to create.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Except when they claim the sun circles the earth, or that semen is produced from a drop of fluid excreted from between the back and ribs, or that the sun sets in a muddy bog, or that disease can be cured by performing a ritual that involves standing in a stream with two birds, or makes predictions that don't come true, or contradicts itself. Yea, the knowledge from your holy books is perfect, except when its not.

The Holy Books often have more than one meaning and many passages are symbolic not literal.There are many meanings in these Books. They are not novels

 

[JustWondering]

Because the universe does not have the power to create.

You're not answering my question. Forget the creator/created stuff. Why is the existence of a universe creating entity that is more complex then the universes it creates existence without a beginning more logical than a universe itself existing without a beginning? What is your logical premise for this belief?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Your holy books contain obvious errors and contradictions proving they were written by men with no more knowledge about the nature of reality than anyone else at the time they wrote their books. I feel no need to embrace mysticism and ancient myth to fill gaps in my knowledge. I simply except that I don't know.

I am happy to read your views and learn from you. I respect that you understand things differently and can live with that very comfortably.

 

[JustWondering]

The Holy Books often have more than one meaning and many passages are symbolic not literal.There are many meanings in these Books. They are not novels

I don't except your apologetics. If you want to turn a blind eye to the errors in your holy books than go for it. Just proves that the reasons for your beliefs consist of wishful thinking.

 

[loverofhumanity]

You're not answering my question. Forget the creator/created stuff. Why is the existence of a universe creating entity that is more complex then the universes it creates existence without a beginning more logical than a universe itself existing without a beginning? What is your logical premise for this belief?

The universe is not self perpetuating but perpetuated by an outside Force. Like the rays of the sun prove there is a sun.

 

[JustWondering]

The universe is not self perpetuating but perpetuated by an outside Force. Like the rays of the sun prove there is a sun.

That's not what I asked. Forget the creator/created stuff. Why is the existence of a universe creating entity that is more complex then the universes it creates existence without a beginning more logical than a universe itself existing without a beginning? What is your logical premise for this belief?

 

[loverofhumanity]

I don't except your apologetics. If you want to turn a blind eye to the errors in your holy books than go for it. Just proves that the reasons for your beliefs consist of wishful thinking.

Which errors?

 

[JustWondering]

Which errors?

I supplied 5 examples in post 321, but that is not what this thread is about.

Now please answer my question and Forget the creator/created stuff. Why is the existence of a god that is more complex then the universes it creates existence without a beginning or creator more logical than a universe itself (that is less complex then the aforementioned being) existing without a beginning or creator? What is your logical premise for this belief?

 

[loverofhumanity]

That's not what I asked. Forget the creator/created stuff. Why is the existence of a universe creating entity that is more complex then the universes it creates existence without a beginning more logical than a universe itself existing without a beginning? What is your logical premise for this belief?

You're asking me to be illogical.

Because you are asking me for example to separate the rays of the sun from the sun and asking me why the rays of the sun cannot exist independent of the sun and then every time I bring in the sun you say don't bring the sun in!!! It's impossible the rays exist without the sun but you are asking me to prove that and that's impossible.

Why is it more logical for the sun to exist by itself than the rays of the sun to exist by themselves is what you're saying. The rays cannot exist independently because they are dependent on the sun but the sun is not dependent on the rays.

It's so clear as the sun it's blinding.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Except when they claim the sun circles the earth, or that semen is produced from a drop of fluid excreted from between the back and ribs, or that the sun sets in a muddy bog, or that disease can be cured by performing a ritual that involves standing in a stream with two birds, or makes predictions that don't come true, or contradicts itself. Yea, the knowledge from your holy books is perfect, except when its not.

There is nothing in the Holy Books of the major religions that states these things. Interpretations are not truth.

 

[JustWondering]

There is nothing in the Holy Books of the major religions that states these things. Interpretations are not truth.

Then I apparently know your holy books better than you do.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Then I apparently know your holy books better than you do.

If you think that then that's fine. I'm ok with that.

 

[JustWondering]

You're asking me to be illogical.

Because you are asking me for example to separate the rays of the sun from the sun and asking me why the rays of the sun cannot exist independent of the sun and then every time I bring in the sun you say don't bring the sun in!!! It's impossible the rays exist without the sun but you are asking me to prove that and that's impossible.

Why is it more logical for the sun to exist by itself than the rays of the sun to exist by themselves is what you're saying. The rays cannot exist independently because they are dependent on the sun but the sun is not dependent on the rays.

It's so clear as the sun it's blinding.

Please remember you are talking to an atheist. The sun is an observable celestial body, your god, until proven to exist, is fictional. According to your "logic" a universe making machine "god" can exist without a beginning or creator but less complex machines "universes" need the first machine "god" to even exist. You are trying to argue that complexity cannot exist without an intelligent designer but your god should be more complex than the universe it creates. Your argument defeats itself. Either you are incapable of comprehending this and further debate with you is pointless, or you are purposely feigning not to understand that your argument doesn't work and further debate with you is pointless.

 

[JustWondering]

If you think that then that's fine. I'm ok with that.

You're ok with being ignorant? What most monotheistic religions do to the human mind is criminal.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Please remember you are talking to an atheist. The sun is an observable celestial body, your god, until proven to exist, is fictional. According to your "logic" a universe making machine "god" can exist without a beginning or creator but less complex machines "universes" need the first machine "god" to even exist. You are trying to argue that complexity cannot exist without an intelligent designer but your god should be more complex than the universe it creates. Your argument defeats itself. Either you are incapable of comprehending this and further debate with you is pointless, or you are purposely feigning not to understand that your argument doesn't work and further debate with you is pointless.

I think we both agree there is intelligence in the universe. We just have different understandings where it came from.

 

[loverofhumanity]

You're ok with being ignorant? What most monotheistic religions do to the human mind is criminal.

If you want to believe that then I won't argue with you but let you have your opinion. It's your judgement. I'm just a fellow human being like you. I think you ask a lot of good questions and are very intelligent.

 

[ArtieE]

Why is it more logical for the sun to exist by itself than the rays of the sun to exist by themselves is what you're saying.

We know why and how suns come into existence. No gods are involved.

 

[loverofhumanity]

We know why and how suns come into existence. No gods are involved.

No one knows everything.