The First Cause was not God.

[Runewolf1973]

Great, but you are claiming to know. You can't say. 'I don't know, but I do know..'

makes no sense.

No, I was merely speculating.

 

[Thief]

Unanswered questions are one thing. Making claims that some magical, all-powerful, all-knowing being definitely exists which no one has ever seen is putting fantasy before logic. Nature being what it is dictates a natural cause, not something fantastical or divine.

In the scheme of superlatives.....Someone is bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent and greatly experienced.

Couple that to the power of creation and you have.....THE ALMIGHTY!

Now if you insist upon substance first.....back down this thread we go.
The dead cannot beget the living.

I say Spirit first.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can't follow?
Not surprised.

but I suspect you DO understand....and just won't fess up.

No, I really do see your arguments as irrational. They're full of logical fallacies and unsupported leaps. If you do have rational reasons for your beliefs, you've kept them to yourself so far.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Great, but you are claiming to know. You can't say. 'I don't know, but I do know..'

makes no sense.

It makes sense just fine: "I can't tell whether a horse or a zebra left these hoofprints, but I'm sure they weren't left by a pegasus."

 

[Thief]

No, I really do see your arguments as irrational. They're full of logical fallacies and unsupported leaps. If you do have rational reasons for your beliefs, you've kept them to yourself so far.

Logical fallacies?.....as compared to illogical denial?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In the scheme of superlatives.....Someone is bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent and greatly experienced.

Couple that to the power of creation and you have.....THE ALMIGHTY!

Now if you insist upon substance first.....back down this thread we go.
The dead cannot beget the living.

I say Spirit first.

Heh... a God with no substance would be insubstantial... literally. Words like "bigger", "faster", and "stronger" refer to the physical nature of a thing: its substance. If you want to argue that your God is "spirit", then you can't rightly imbue him with physical properties.

You have a contradiction in terms. Talking about the "biggest spirit" is as nonsensical as talking about the "heaviest colour".

 

[Thief]

Heh... a God with no substance would be insubstantial... literally. Words like "bigger", "faster", and "stronger" refer to the physical nature of a thing: its substance. If you want to argue that your God is "spirit", then you can't rightly imbue him with physical properties.

You have a contradiction in terms. Talking about the "biggest spirit" is as nonsensical as talking about the "heaviest colour".

So your spirit is bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent and greatly experienced?

You have the power of creation and answer to no one?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Logical fallacies?.....as compared to illogical denial?

This is an example of the "tu quoque" fallacy:

Fallacy: Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

See what I mean?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So your spirit is bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent and greatly experienced?

My spirit is as fast as the colour blue is heavy.

You have the power of creation and answer to no one?

It would help if you actually read posts all the way through before replying to them.

 

[Thief]

My spirit is as fast as the colour blue is heavy.


It would help if you actually read posts all the way through before replying to them.

And you claim I am inconsistent!

That one line'r you just posted is hardly an argument.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And you claim I am inconsistent!

That one line'r you just posted is hardly an argument.

My post wasn't an argument in its own right; it was a response to yours.

 

[outhouse]

My post wasn't an argument in its own right; it was a response to yours.

Your not going to find logic and reason, when they are used to avoiding it.


We cannot combat willful ignorance, and closed minds who's imagination guides them.

 

[Sonofason]

It's just too easy to say "God did it." I want real answers and that's what science does, it finds real answers. Humans have been saying the same thing for centuries about diseases and natural disasters or phenomena. All those things that humans once thought were acts of God were acually natural occurrences and not caused by something divine. Just because science still has some unanswered questions regarding this universe is no reason to go off the deep end and bilk it up to some concocted fantasy.

I believe that even after the scientific method has become completely exhausted, once you know everything that you are capable of knowing, once you've gotten all of your real answers, it will remain easy for me to say, "see, God did it."

 

[Thief]

My post wasn't an argument in its own right; it was a response to yours.

Oh!...just a shallow retort on your part!

Then my previous post still stands unanswered.

Where were we?..........

 

[Thief]

Your not going to find logic and reason, when they are used to avoiding it.


We cannot combat willful ignorance, and closed minds who's imagination guides them.

And people who refuse imagination can solve no kind of problem.
Imagination is the problem solving part of the mind.

Gotta have one for this sort of thing.

and looks who's talking about willful ignorance!!!!!!

 

[Runewolf1973]

I believe that even after the scientific method has become completely exhausted, once you know everything that you are capable of knowing, once you've gotten all of your real answers, it will remain easy for me to say, "see, God did it."

And one could still say..."Where's the evidence?!!"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh!...just a shallow retort on your part!

Then my previous post still stands unanswered.

Where were we?..........

We're left trying to reconcile your claim that God is insubstantial with your other claim that God can produce substantial effects.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe that even after the scientific method has become completely exhausted, once you know everything that you are capable of knowing, once you've gotten all of your real answers, it will remain easy for me to say, "see, God did it."

But if we have all of the "real answers" and God isn't among them, why would you?

 

[Thief]

We're left trying to reconcile your claim that God is insubstantial with your other claim that God can produce substantial effects.

Let's see....stand before the Almighty and call Him.....insubstantial.....
Hmmmmm

Sounds like spiritual suicide to me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let's see....stand before the Almighty and call Him.....insubstantial.....
Hmmmmm

Sounds like spiritual suicide to me.

You were the one who called him "spirit" and "not substance", weren't you?

What do we call something without substance? Insubstantial.

If you're uncomfortable with the implications of what you're saying, you're free to change your mind.

Edit: BTW - your post was what we call an appeal to consequences... IOW, another logical fallacy. Whether we would suffer or benefit from something being true or false is irrelevant to whether it actually is true or false.