A Problem with God

[TEKLOFTY]

First off, I'm glad I have amused you but do you honestly think I have swerved rebutting you because I haven't got the armoury???

...or do you think I might not have answered because I grew a little tired of discussing a subject with someone who just isn't up to it and seems incapable of realising that fact.

Go back and look at my 8000 plus posts, I have NEVER shirked a debate least of all to somebody like yourself, now by all means indulge yourself in these threads but never make the mistake of believing I have discontinued a discussion because of a lack of armoury, you are nowhere near the person capable of eliciting that reaction in me ... as I said, wind your neck in a little and try to learn to back off when the time comes .... and do not become disrespectful ....

Peace

It wasn’t a debate in the first place, you offended me by calling someone irresponsible for not believing in a creator; it got under my skin - the debating part came from the fact that you didn't seem to recognise this, which to be honest surpised me.

Sorry for the late reply, I had a power cut.

 

[Bedlam]

We live in a world and experience a world that constantly remind us of the connection between cause and effect.
In other words, for every possible event, there is a reason that event occurred, and this applies on the macro-level of stars exploding down to the micro level of sub-atomic particle collisions.

We live in a universe that in entirely causal in nature and even when we think we have discovered something that seemingly happens for no reason, this always turns out to be due to a lack of understanding or ignorance of certain functional operands.

And so, my point is this, if you had to choose whether we had a case for a god (creator) or not, then if we ponder the latter, we have to countenance the idea of this whole universe and everything in it, including the laws of that universe and evolution etc etc are entirely the product of spontaneously self-creating.

In other words, first there was nothing, absolutely nothing, no particles, no gravity, no light, no time and even no god, and then all of a sudden we have a universe ...Pow!

The alternative to this is to consider a creator who, for some, as of yet unknown reason, created us.
Now, what is more likely, and what is more evidence orientated, a world creating itself or a world created by a creator?

The fact we are not in possession of the whys and wherefores of god's decision to create us is completely academic here because we must go with the evidence and I realise it's all circumstantial but at least we have that whereas with the alternative, there is no evidence whatsoever of spontaneous self-creation anywhere in this world that is supposed to have created itself.

Pete, I read this and it applies logic and scientific reasoning. But you appear to suggest your position is one of a theological man. You talk about fate in your first couple of paragraphs, that all things happen for a reason and that the outcome is pre-ordained.

Your last paragraph then seems to state that because we don't know the answers, we should take it on faith that it happened the way you say. Tom, Mario, Tek, Buddha and several others all state the same thing and that is that the lack of evidence is contrary to the scientific argument and for that very reason it plays into the theological argument. We can reason what happened after the big bang or after creation began. But we don't know. So, that makes all arguments about it relatively moot. We have several differing view points. Whos to say that yours is right? Or mine? Or anyone elses? That is for each person to decide.

We can all be eloquent about our stand points in life, but it is one of the few choices that we can make for ourselves.