You probably know the rules by now. "God" gets a pass. You do not get to ask the same questions about this alleged deity that is believer ask about the universe. Why? You'll get irrelevant answers. The rules don't apply to the guy who invented them. Why not? Because he's God. Or God doesn't exist in time or space. Why does that change anything? [crickets]. Or God didn't begin to exist but the universe did. How do you know and why would that matter?
That 'all that exists' reality is called 'God' in some cultures and is called 'universe' in scientific culture.
Those other cultures talk to it and perform rituals in hopes of magical results from it. I wouldn't place too much stock in their opinions.
The question "What is south of the South Pole?" is a common logical fallacy known as a Red Herring that some use when their understanding is limited.
You're quick to call fallacy, but don't make any supporting argument. There is nothing about that comment that is fallacious or indicates a lack of understanding. Here come some more:
In every case, that was the entire post, two posted twice each.
Nothing is fallacious because you post two words with an exclamation point claiming so. In what you call "scientific culture," which I'll translate to the community of critically thinking empiricists, more is needed than just a claim. Simply uttering these phrases doesn't mean that you understand what they mean or that you can identify fallacies.
Maybe you were hoping otherwise. Believers like to borrow from the unbeliever's nomenclature, but not the culture itself. Hence, they offer faulty reasoning and sciencey sounding objections to give the impression that reason and evidence are important to them and the means by which they arrived at their beliefs, but the words don't stand up to scrutiny as when you make the pronouncements you did above.
Nothing can come from nothing, if you think otherwise, prove it.
He doesn't need to. You need to demonstrate that your claim is correct if you don't want it dismissed.
I said the physicists need to prove that mass can come into existence from nothing
Same answer: no, they don't. They only need to discover what is the case as well as the evidence permits.
a discussion between Pantheists, Orthodox Christians, and Atheists, about the universe is certain to be difficult to find common agreement.
Pantheists and atheists tend to agree, except that the former call reality a god. Spinoza and Einstein used that word but seem to agree with atheists who don't.
Abrahamists can be the same - basically in agreement with atheistic humanists - and some here on RF are, but only if they don't go much further than the pantheists. One can use the word God and even say grace and go to church on Sunday to sing hymns and meet friendly people (for the time he is with them in a church, anyway), but if one gets a liberal education and forms his values from applying reason to the benevolent intuitions of the conscience, he'll arrive at the same place as the atheistic humanist. His religion will not have harmed him.
But go further and start believing that atheists hate God, homosexuals are an abomination, or that science is your enemy, then you've been harmed by your beliefs.
God is one. I create the light, and the dark, I create the good, and the evil, I the Lord does these things. Isaiah 45:6-7
Assuming that you're presenting that as fact or truth, I don't suppose you want to hear which fallacies you committed there. Those are all non sequiturs. Noe are the sound conclusions of reasoned, evidenced arguments.
I Googled it to see which translation you used that makes grammatical errors - "I does" - and got only one hit - this thread.
So I Googled Isaiah 45:6-7 to see what it said. Here's the King James translation:
"that they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
It looks like you've taken liberties there. Where do you get "God is one" from that? Did you mean the only god? And it looks like you changed peace to good.
Nevertheless, there is still no reason to believe any of that, but I'm guessing that you do - another logical error.
The human body is not what I truly am
Sure it is, and more. There's also the human mind. That should be enough. It is for me.
If you want to add a soul or spirit and don't mean an aspect of mind, then you're just guessing.
It is much easier to go through life unburdened by all of that. It's harder to get to that point. It requires a degree of education and discipline, but once one has made that investment in himself and learned to view the world without magic and to not believe anything without sufficient justification, the world makes more sense than before making that journey. For example, one doesn't have to wonder why God creates gratuitous suffering (Satan, hell), or why science and Genesis contradict one another, or why carnivores need to kill to survive, or why children get cancer or get raped.
