Are You A Good Man....

[37818]

Yes, so?



Multiverse theory is put forward by some Cosmologists to explain puzzling observations and questions that are unanswerable without such a theory. The point is that the concept of an infinite multiverse cannot be ruled out at this stage.



Everything comes from something before. In our case we evolved via Natural Selection from microorganisms, probably similar to those found in hydrothermal vent precipitates. Before this we don’t know, but to argue that “therefore God” is an unacceptable Argument from Ignorance.

I am arguing ability does not come from inability. Either you agree or you contend that ultimately ability comes from inability. If you agree, then here must always been Ability. If you disagree, then you are effectively arguing ability comes from nothing.

[37818]

You can obviously type now. Could you type when you were born? Or before you were born?

If not, then your ability (to type) must have come from an inability (to type). An ability can come from an inability, and an inability is not the same as 'nothing'.

You are wrong.

So are you arguing ability comes from nothing?

[Roy]

You can obviously type now. Could you type when you were born? Or before you were born?

If not, then your ability (to type) must have come from an inability (to type). An ability can come from an inability, and an inability is not the same as 'nothing'.

You are wrong.

So are you arguing ability comes from nothing?

Never mind. It doesn't matter. You obviously can't understand this stuff. Don't worry your twee little head about it.

[37818]

Never mind. It doesn't matter. You obviously can't understand this stuff. Don't worry your twee little head about it.

What is it you think I did not understand? Yes, typing is a learned ability. But one has to have the ability to learn to type. There are all kinds of abilities. The term "ability" is very generic. Nevertheless, ability does not come from the inability. There are no exceptions. Yes, an inability can be replaced. But never does the replacement come from the inability that is replaced by said ability. No exceptions.

[Tassman]

I am arguing ability does not come from inability.

As opposed to being granted by an omnipotent God, which is what we all know you’re angling for. Your problem is that you have no substantive evidence of the existence of a deity.

Either you agree or you contend that ultimately ability comes from inability. If you agree, then here must always been Ability. If you disagree, then you are effectively arguing ability comes from nothing.

If nothing comes from nothing, then God cannot exist, because God is not “nothing”. If that premise is true that “nothing comes from nothing,” and if God is something, then you have no argument.

[37818]

As opposed to being granted by an omnipotent God, which is what we all know you’re angling for. Your problem is that you have no substantive evidence of the existence of a deity.

I believe in an uncaused existence. As what I identify as Who. Infinite and personal.

If nothing comes from nothing, then God cannot exist, because God is not “nothing”. If that premise is true that “nothing comes from nothing,” and if God is something, then you have no argument.

You are making no sense.

What is your idea of God? Yes, I understand you do not profess to believe there is God. You have an idea of God where there cannot be one in your view.

[Tassman]

I believe in an uncaused existence. As what I identify as Who. Infinite and personal.

Your problem is that you have no substantive evidence to support this belief.

You are making no sense.

You are invalidly exempting your creator deity from your belief that “nothing comes from nothing”.

What is your idea of God? Yes, I understand you do not profess to believe there is God. You have an idea of God where there cannot be one in your view.

Gods were a prescientific attempt to explain natural mysteries like where the sun went at night, voilà Apollo the sun god etc.

[37818]

Your problem is that you have no substantive evidence to support this belief.

You allow yourself no basis to acknowledge that anyone can have any such evidence.

What would be substantive evidence for you? Never mind me.

Besides the Christian belief that Christians have evidence from God (John 17:3; 1 John 5:9; John 14:6). Non-Christians do not know God in any personal way.

You are invalidly exempting your creator deity from your belief that “nothing comes from nothing”.

How? Please explain your thinking on this.

Gods were a prescientific attempt to explain natural mysteries like where the sun went at night, voilà Apollo the sun god etc.

Well, I have not heard you make the argument, like that the sun is no more the god Apollo than uncaused existence is God. You have not made this argument.

[Tassman]

You allow yourself no basis to acknowledge that anyone can have any such evidence.

I don’t have to. One doesn’t begin with the desired conclusion, namely belief in an “uncaused, infinite and personal deity”. If you have evidence to prove this other than your subjective belief, then provide it.

What would be substantive evidence for you? Never mind me.

See above.

Besides the Christian belief that Christians have evidence from God (John 17:3; 1 John 5:9; John 14:6). Non-Christians do not know God in any personal way.

If you cannot substantiate this personal belief of yours, why would I believe you?

How? Please explain your thinking on this.

If “nothing comes from nothing” then this must apply to gods as well.

Well, I have not heard you make the argument, like that the sun is no more the god Apollo than uncaused existence is God. You have not made this argument.

My argument is that religion is a primitive attempt to explain otherwise inexplicable events in nature, a role now taken over more effectively by science.