Logically, agnosticism is the most rational position

[Willamena]

this is where your "logic" fails.

Comparing something you know was made by humans to something not made by humans and claiming they are the same is not logical.

Like... the "universe"?

 

[loverofhumanity]

this is where your "logic" fails.

Comparing something you know was made by humans to something not made by humans and claiming they are the same is not logical.

It is logical to compare two things that did not make themselves.

Regardless of the object used, the concept of an object that did not create itself is within the chain of logic presented.

As both the tv and the universe did not manufacture themselves this proves logically without a doubt that the manufacturer or creator was another other than the object. Namely a technician for the tv or God for the universe as man did not create the universe but found it already here.

Logically there is no break in the chain, only different metaphors are used.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Some people believe in the Clockwork universe; for others, the universe is a bit more mysterious.


Is it clear to say the opposite, though. Because man builds steps, is it clear to say that a step was built by man? Or is man emulating nature? Could nature put one stone "in front of" another (as it has done)?


These arguments are not in the purview of logic. They are the purview of divination.


We are not incapable of knowing the content of a word that we have developed, that has meant so much to so many people over countless millennia. The only limit we have is the one we impose on ourselves through ignorance.

We know we did not create the universe. And we know the universe is subject to laws it cannot deviate from and therefore did not create itself. Man cannot create even a seed. We know of nothing that can create yet we have a creation, implying a creator.

A painting cannot exist without the painter.

It's very simple but for some too profound that a creation presupposes a creator. It's impossible that a creation has no creator.

 

[Willamena]

We know we did not create the universe. And we know the universe is subject to laws it cannot deviate from and therefore did not create itself. Man cannot create even a seed. We know of nothing that can create yet we have a creation, implying a creator.

Man has created a seed. Horticulture is an ancient practice.

A painting cannot exist without the painter.

It's very simple but for some too profound that a creation presupposes a creator. It's impossible that a creation has no creator.

This painting all around you, that is the world as we know it, is authored by you. By each of us.

 

[Willamena]

We know we did not create the universe. And we know the universe is subject to laws it cannot deviate from and therefore did not create itself. Man cannot create even a seed. We know of nothing that can create yet we have a creation, implying a creator.

A painting cannot exist without the painter.

It's very simple but for some too profound that a creation presupposes a creator. It's impossible that a creation has no creator.

We created the universe. We totally created all the good and the bad. That was us. The "laws" we see are based on our observations. We are the universe. That is this. The true profundity is that realization of oneness.

 

[McBell]

It is logical to compare two things that did not make themselves.

Yet you do not do that.
You compare something that is known to be made to something you have no evidence outside wishful thinking that it was made.
You are hoping that with presenting the television the reader associates designer/creator of the tv with the universe.
A rather dishonest tactic that reeks of desperation.
But hey, if your god approves of such dishonesty.....

As both the tv and the universe did not manufacture themselves

Bold Empty claim.
Unless of course you can support it with something other than more wishful thinking.

this proves logically without a doubt that the manufacturer or creator was another other than the object. Namely a technician for the tv or God for the universe as man did not create the universe but found it already here.

Logically there is no break in the chain, only different metaphors are used.

thank you for further demonstrating the above described by me scenario.

 

[McBell]

... yet we have a creation...

What do you have outside wishful thinking to support this bold empty claim?

 

[loverofhumanity]

We created the universe. We totally created all the good and the bad. That was us. The "laws" we see are based on our observations. We are the universe. That is this. The true profundity is that realization of oneness.

You might like 'The Seven Valleys and the Four Valleys of inner truth written by Bahaullah.

http://www.bahai.org/library/author...lleys/seven-valleys-four-valleys.pdf?0e05daed

An example of the content.

“Dost thou reckon thyself only a puny form
When within thee the universe is folded?

Excerpt From: Bahá’u’lláh. “The Seven Valleys and the Four Valleys.”

 

[loverofhumanity]

What do you have outside wishful thinking to support this bold empty claim?

The Words of God. They are endowed with creative power.

The Bible, the Quran, Buddhist Writings, Baha'i and Christian Writings.

If you can produce something similar that can affect the course of civilisation I welcome you to try but you will fail.

Only these Teachers or Prophets have shown extraordinary power to overcome all odds and establish their ascendancy without wealth or earthly power and in the face of opposition from the most powerful leaders of their time.

They are proof of a God. And if one rejects Them as ordinary men then their feats should be easy to reproduce.

Can you produce a book or religion that despite opposition from the most powerful leaders of your time that will influence hearts and minds and inspire civilisations for centuries? You can't.

If you can't then you are unable to explain away that all These Teachers Who spoke of God without allowing for the possibility that there is a God.

Otherwise if They were just ordinary men then you should have no trouble becoming a Prophet and obtaining billions of followers.

Only God can achieve these things. It's obvious man can't yet he insists there's no God. Then take up this challenge.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

The Words of God. They are endowed with creative power.

The Bible, the Quran, Buddhist Writings, Baha'i and Christian Writings.

If you can produce something similar that can affect the course of civilisation I welcome you to try but you will fail.

Superfluous criteria; this has already been accomplished by someone who wasn't divinely inspired. Confucius' writings shaped Chinese society for well over a thousand years and changed how people viewed not only government & society at large but their relationships with each other and with the wider Universe.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Superfluous criteria; this has already been accomplished by someone who wasn't divinely inspired. Confucius' writings shaped Chinese society for well over a thousand years and changed how people viewed not only government & society at large but their relationships with each other and with the wider Universe.

Only Chinese society. The Prophets God founded great civilisations that affected the entire world and still do.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Only Chinese society. The Prophets God founded great civilisations that affected the entire world and still do.

Not only Chinese society; Japanese, Korean & Vietnamese societies as well. You're moving the goalposts by the way. At first the criterion was that they had to merely affect civilisation - now they had to have founded civilisations. No prophets of God have done this - they were all born into pre-existing civilisations. The Arabs existed before Muhammad, the Jews existed before Moses & Jesus, the Buddha didn't found any civilisation, neither did Bahaullah or Zarathustra. You're disqualifying your own religious leader by proxy.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Not only Chinese society; Japanese, Korean & Vietnamese societies as well. You're moving the goalposts by the way. At first the criterion was that they had to merely affect civilisation - now they had to have founded civilisations. No prophets of God have done this - they were all born into pre-existing civilisations. The Arabs existed before Muhammad, the Jews existed before Moses & Jesus, the Buddha didn't found any civilisation, neither did Bahaullah or Zarathustra. You're disqualifying your own religious leader by proxy.

Still clutching at straws. The influence of the Prophets and Messengers is incomparable whichever way you want to look at it.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Still clutching at straws.

If you view facts as analogous to straws to be clutched at in desperation then perhaps you should stop and reconsider your priorities.

The influence of the Prophets and Messengers is incomparable whichever way you want to look at it.

Confucius' influence is directly comparable to theirs'. He influenced Chinese society and helped pave the way for future dynasties in that country; as well as kingdoms in neighbouring lands. What was the name of the civilisation Bahaullah founded again?

 

[loverofhumanity]

If you view facts as analogous to straws to be clutched at in desperation then perhaps you should stop and reconsider your priorities.




Confucius' influence is directly comparable to theirs'. He influenced Chinese society and helped pave the way for future dynasties in that country; as well as kingdoms in neighbouring lands. What was the name of the civilisation Bahaullah founded again?

Baha'u'llah has founded a worldwide community that in time will become a flourishing world civilisation. The major Faiths took hundreds of years before their greatness was revealed.

 

[McBell]

The Words of God. They are endowed with creative power.

The Bible, the Quran, Buddhist Writings, Baha'i and Christian Writings.

If you can produce something similar that can affect the course of civilisation I welcome you to try but you will fail.

Only these Teachers or Prophets have shown extraordinary power to overcome all odds and establish their ascendancy without wealth or earthly power and in the face of opposition from the most powerful leaders of their time.

They are proof of a God. And if one rejects Them as ordinary men then their feats should be easy to reproduce.

Can you produce a book or religion that despite opposition from the most powerful leaders of your time that will influence hearts and minds and inspire civilisations for centuries? You can't.

If you can't then you are unable to explain away that all These Teachers Who spoke of God without allowing for the possibility that there is a God.

Otherwise if They were just ordinary men then you should have no trouble becoming a Prophet and obtaining billions of followers.

Only God can achieve these things. It's obvious man can't yet he insists there's no God. Then take up this challenge.

I asked "outside wishful thinking"...

 

[loverofhumanity]

I asked "outside wishful thinking"...

That's your understanding which I respect.

 

[leibowde84]

If we were to reach a starting point then how did creation endow itself with processes and laws when we see that it cannot deviate from these laws? Only an entity that is independent of laws could create such laws and processes. We see nature subservient to laws not a creator. It follows set rules and does not have creativity. Something must have had creativity to put these processes and laws in place.

We do not find any creativity in existence only a subservience to laws it cannot deviate from so we infer from that that an independent entity must exist in order to have put in place these laws and processes. We call that entity God.

I would argue that laws of this nature weren't created. They are merely descriptors of how the natural universe works. There is no need for any author of such natural laws. For example, water becomes ice at a certain temperature because of the slowing of water molecules. Arguably, every law of this kind has a natural explanation whether or not that explanation has been discovered by humans yet.

Why do you think that laws of physics which merely describe how matter interacts with other forms of matter necessarily need a creator?

 

[McBell]

I would argue that laws of this nature weren't created. They are merely descriptors of how the natural universe works. There is no need for any author of such natural laws. For example, water becomes ice at a certain temperature because of the slowing of water molecules. Arguably, every law of this kind has a natural explanation whether or not that explanation has been discovered by humans yet.

Why do you think that laws of physics which merely describe how matter interacts with other forms of matter necessarily need a creator?

The Onion of Understanding

More specifically, not understanding The Onion of Understanding

 

[loverofhumanity]

I would argue that laws of this nature weren't created. They are merely descriptors of how the natural universe works. There is no need for any author of such natural laws. For example, water becomes ice at a certain temperature because of the slowing of water molecules. Arguably, every law of this kind has a natural explanation whether or not that explanation has been discovered by humans yet.

Why do you think that laws of physics which merely describe how matter interacts with other forms of matter necessarily need a creator?

You make some very good points. Ok here's something to think about.

If I have a house of bricks in the woods, it is very possible that after some years and storms, that house may be damaged and become a pile of bricks right? That sounds very reasonable wouldn't you say?

But say I have a pile of bricks in the woods and we have storms and bad weather, after many years upon my return, will those bricks have become a house? That doesn't sound very likely does it?

So the less likely event is that man, like the bricks on the ground, just became a house (man) without any builder. It is very unlikely that without a builder a house could have built itself from the elements and organised itself into such an intelligent and complex being.

Only a Builder, we say, God, could have possibly achieved this.