[b]Since you're always so rude as to post every comment as the start of anew thread, why should I (or anyone) give you the courtesy of using the 'reply' button.

So from now every comment I make will start a new thread[/b]

I have already told you what I think of that text... it's a few comments below your original question in the same thread.

You have not objected to my views, so I take that as yet another indicator of your new-found atheism

[b]Since you're always so rude as to post every comment as the start of anew thread, why should I (or anyone) give you the courtesy of using the 'reply' button.

So every comment I make will start a new thread[/b]

In the comment just above, you'll see that our existence is not associated with the existence of your god, so your claim is invalid.

Please respond to the argument I have laid out in that comment, or acknowledge that there is therefore no need for your god to exist.

[b]Since you're always so rude as to post every comment as the start of anew thread, why should I (or anyone) give you the courtesy of using the 'reply' button.

So every comment I make will start a new thread[/b]

and that explains how your 'god of nature' and your 'god of supernature' invaidate the claims you made in the previous comment in this thread

[b]Since you're always so rude as to post every comment as the start of anew thread, why should I (or anyone) give you the courtesy of using the 'reply' button.

So from now every comment I make will start a new thread[/b]

In answer to your question - I think that you repeated your own comment because you wanted to say something just to able to read your own words but had nothing else to say, so you merely said the same thing again to make yourself feel good… otherwise you risked realising the reality of your irrelevance

[media=https://youtu.be/wguAQHWVcZY]

[b]Since you're always so rude as to post every comment as the start of anew thread, why should I (or anyone) give you the courtesy of using the 'reply' button.

So from now every comment I make will start a new thread[/b]


Hello fellow atheist... yrger the atheist 👍

You are unable to comprehend that the Big bang was not the beginning of the universe, but rather the beginning of the expansion of the universe.

Ask yourself... what was going 'bang'?

As there is no known 'beginning' to the universe, there is no compelling necessity to postulate gods.

You accept that as a reasoned conclusion, because you have not argued against it.

[b]therefore... atheist[/b]

You are unable to respond in any reasoned or germane manner to my statements that:

1. there's no proof that gods exist
2. there's no proof that gods don't exist
3. in any event, there’s no compelling necessity to even postulate gods, and, in any event, the postulation explains nothing (not even itself)... it merely tries to explain everything away.
4. therefore, I have no gods (I’m an agnostic atheist)

[b]therefore... atheist[/b]

Apparently anything and everything can be a god, so it follows that gods are indistinguishable from everything else, and their existence cannot be discerned, so there is no reason to even consider such a postulation

[b]therefore... atheist[/b]

[b]I congratulate you on the efficient way you have used your claims of theism to destroy theism and thereby advance your atheism[/b]

[b]Since you're always so rude as to post every comment as the start of anew thread, why should I (or anyone) give you the courtesy of using the 'reply' button.

So from now every comment I make will start a new thread[/b]

The physical universe (what other sort is there) isn't 'working to order'

It's the way it is because otherwise it would be a different universe... a different universe that looked as if it was 'working to order'.

...and that universe would be the way it is because otherwise it too would be a different universe... a different universe that looked as if it was 'working to order'.

Your questions are so banal, and the answers are so self-evident, that I suspect you simply enjoy wasting everyone's time with trivialities.

[b]Since you're always so rude as to post every comment as the start of anew thread, why should I (or anyone) give you the courtesy of using the 'reply' button.

So from now every comment I make will start a new thread [/b]

So, according to you the worm that drills holes through children’s eyes and blinds them comes from your god.

You say that colon cancer comes from your god.

You admit that the spontaneous abortion of a quarter of all first pregnancies comes from your god.

Your god is disgusting!

[b]Since you're always so rude as to post every comment as the start of anew thread, why should I (or anyone) give you the courtesy of using the 'reply' button.

So from now every comment I make will start a new thread [/b]

[quote]reason and intelligence[/quote]

Why are those more important than particular attributes of other species?

Is it because they are our attributes?

[b]Since you're always so rude as to post every comment as the start of anew thread, why should I (or anyone) give you the courtesy of using the 'reply' button.

So from now every comment I make will start a new thread,[/b]

Why are you going on about my relationship with my parents and within my immediate family?

Are you so seriously in need of hatred and discord and suffering that you imagine it happening to everyone else?

That's disgusting.

All four of my grandparents were atheists.

Their marriages were close and loving and ended only by death.

However, that has nothing to do with you.

Both of my parents were atheists.

My parents and I were close and loving until the day they died.

However, that has nothing to do with you.

My siblings and their families and my daughter are all atheists

My siblings and their families and my daughter and I are close and loving

However, that has nothing to do with you.

So express your hate and your confusion and your fear and your contempt for basic decency towards others somewhere else.

I have no need of it in my life.

[b]Actually, since you're always so rude as to post every comment as the start of anew thread, why should I (or anyone) give you the courtesy of using the 'reply' button.

So from now every comment I make will start a new thread,[/b]

Why on Earth do you think I'm suffering? I assure you, that's as far from reality as it's possible to get 😃

I guess you need me to be suffering, or to be bitter about something or other, or to be angry about something or other, or to be... well, the list of what you need goes on... but I'm sorry, I'm none of those things.

[quote]her anger and hatred of God[/quote]

What god? I don't even postulate the exist of gods... difficult to feel hate and anger towards something I dismiss as an unnecessary and quite trivial sop for the fears and insecurities of others..

Sorry, but you'll need to try harder than that 😂

@newjaninev2


You are angry and hateful toward God, because you have sufferings which you blame on God, but DocSavage is also like you an atheist, and as far as I see him to be, he is not angry and not hateful toward God.

So, hi DocSavage, am I correct you are not angry and hateful toward God?

What do you say, Doc, shall we help newj to resolve her anger and hatred of God, you see, she is definitely not a happy woman, why? And she targets God as the cause of her misery.

Hi newj, perhaps you and your parents are not loving and lovable among yourselves: nobody loves nobody in your dysfunctional sort of a family.

In your case you blame God. Try self-healing by first just divesting your heart and mind of your anger and hatred against your parents and against yourself - you are angry and you hateful toward yourself - very sad. What do you say about that?!


[quote]newjaninev2 · 51-55, F
@yrger so it made one species of ape capable of self-delusion and then sat back to watch the entertainment.

What a nasty piece of work![/quote]




@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User

@deadgerbil

@newjaninev2

I never say that God does disgusting stuffs, it's you who say God does disgusting stuffs to mankind.

So I ask you what disgusting things does God make you bear, then we can all decide how and why you suffer disgusting stuffs you blame on God.

Let everyone pitch in, let us help newjaninev2 resolve the disgustig stuffs she gets from God.


@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User

@deadgerbil

@newjaninev2


Please mention all the disgusting stuffs God does to you, okay!?



@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User

@deadgerbil

@newjaninev2

Enumerate also all the good things that God does, okay?!




@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User

@deadgerbil

@newjaninev2

God dispensed attributes to creatures He creates: to us He gives us reason and intelligence, to cattle, donkeys, and frogs He does not give reason and intelligence, but other attributes for His purposes - God's purposes.

And why does God give to us reason and intelligence?
From my rational intelligent thinking, it is ultimately because He does care that we should know Him.





[quote]newjaninev2 · 51-55, F
@yrger
"reason and intelligence"

Why are those more important than particular attributes of other species?

Is it because they are our attributes?[/quote]

@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User

@deadgerbil

And I could miss your ideas also, for your ideas could be most profitable to me, as I care to know what other people think about things, in particular about God, for God is the ultimate explanation for everything that is not God.

And although you atheists don't care to know God exists, and I being theist am certain from reason and intelligence that God exists - still for being fellow humans, we can and should be civilized and thus even be good friends - so dear DocSavage, no need to be throwing your tihs at me - that is not being friendly.

From my part I just remind you that we humans are not like cattle or donkeys or frogs (not of course insulting these otherwise noble creatures of God) - for God does not endow them with reason and intelligence.

@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User

@deadgerbil

Hi eveyone, of course, if you don't want to be notified of my ideas, that is (I beg for your forgiveness), your loss: because you close your mind to ideas which are what the mind is created by God for.

@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User

@deadgerbil

Hi everyone, if you can read this post from me, even though I don't use the reply feature, and get my ideas, thanks a lot.

I like people who go from ideas and search for evidence to their ideas in the concrete reality of life outside ideas in the mind.

For example, I have the idea of God, so I go to the concrete reality of the world outside our mind, like in our neighborhood, to seek evidence of God.



@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User

@deadgerbil




[quote] deadgerbil · 22-25, F
@yrger yeah I've been casually reading this post and this post represents a very strange way to communicate in general. You easily could've replied directly to my comment but for whatever reason you do it indirectly by adding a comment to the post itself instead of the comment thread and you've been doing this to consistently across the board. And nothing with you is ever succinct. It's repetitive and amounts to spam. Therefore I'm turning off notifications for this post. It's a bunch of nonsense.[/quote]

[quote]yrger
@deadgerbil

I prefer to not use the reply feature because it does not (I could be wrong though) directly reply to me, but it replies to others and others reply to others and on and on like an unwieldy column wide at the top and narrow at the bottom.[/quote]

@deadgerbil

Thanks for reading my posts, I am the Yrger the theist, and I authored the thread here, "Rational intelligent thinking brings man to the God of nature."

You are new here, welcome to my writings here in the current thread.

You ask:[quote]deadgerbil · 22-25, F
@yrger how is this comment any different than the one you posted a few minutes ago?

https://similarworlds.com/atheism/4595117-Rational-intelligent-thinking-brings-man-to-the-God-of?rid=55477364[/quote]

Are the two comments exactly the same?

That's what you noticed - good girl!

Perhaps you should have asked me instead, why I repeated the comment.

Anyway, read the comment again, and tell me whether you agree with me or not, [i]scil.[/i][quote]No, it's not begging the question, because I go outside concepts in my mind to seek evidence of the creator God in the concrete reality of our neighborhood.

And I have found evidence, namely: for example babies and roses in our everywhee neighborhood, babies and roses ultimately come from God, "The God (of nature) that is the permanent self-existent spirit creator and operator of man and the universe and everything transient in nature.[/quote]



[quote] yrger · 80-89, M
From Yrger the theist and author of the thread, "Rational intelligent thinking brings man to the God of nature."

Correction: the line below, "No, it's begging the question" should read: No, it's not begging the question."


Corrected version:
yrger · 80-89, M
@LeopoldBloom No, it's not begging the question, because I go outside concepts in my mind to seek evidence of the creator God in the concrete reality of our neighborhood.

And I have found evidence, namely: for example babies and roses in our everywhee neighborhood, babies and roses ultimately come from God, "The God (of nature) that is the permanent self-existent spirit creator and operator of man and the universe and everything transient in nature."

@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@TheoreticSkeptic

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@TheoreticSkeptic

@Thodsis

@Mithraia[/quote]






@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User

@deadgerbil

From Yrger the theist and author of the thread, "Rational intelligent thinking brings man to the God of nature."

Correction: the line below, "No, it's begging the question" should read: No, it's [i][b]not [/b][/i] begging the question."


Corrected version:[quote]yrger · 80-89, M
@LeopoldBloom No, it's [b][i]not[/i][/b] begging the question, because I go outside concepts in my mind to seek evidence of the creator God in the concrete reality of our neighborhood.

And I have found evidence, namely: for example babies and roses in our everywhee neighborhood, babies and roses ultimately come from God, "The God (of nature) that is the permanent self-existent spirit creator and operator of man and the universe and everything transient in nature."[/quote]

@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User

From Yrger the theist and author of the thread, "Rational intelligent thinking brings man to the God of nature."

Correction: the line below, "No, it's begging the question" should read: No, it's [i][b]not [/b][/i] begging the question."


Corrected version:[quote]yrger · 80-89, M
@LeopoldBloom No, it's [b][i]not[/i][/b] begging the question, because I go outside concepts in my mind to seek evidence of the creator God in the concrete reality of our neighborhood.

And I have found evidence, namely: for example babies and roses in our everywhee neighborhood, babies and roses ultimately come from God, "The God (of nature) that is the permanent self-existent spirit creator and operator of man and the universe and everything transient in nature."[/quote]

@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User

Hi everyone, I the theist and author of the present thread, "Rational intelligent thinking brings man to the God of nature."


How come atheists are no longer posting in here my thread, I guess they have depleted their coffer of useful knowledge.

Take for example DocSavage, his brain is saturated with his own tihs. In the case of newjaninev2, her mind is lost in infinite regress.


In my case I have investigated all existence and have gained a lot of ideas and realities about existence, so that my most latest definition of God of nature is the following:
"The God (of nature) is the permanent self-existent spirit creator and operator of man and the universe and everything transient in nature."



@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User

@newjaninev2

Hi everyone and all atheists, please react to the text below, in regard to the thread, "Rational intelligent thinking brings man to the God of nature."

Yours truly,
Yrger the theist.


[quote] yrger · 80-89, M
@DocSavage



@TheoreticSkeptic

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@TheoreticSkeptic

@Thodsis

@Mithraia


Okay atheists, you deny that there is a primordial reality from which all posterior beings came from.

That ultimately explains why we humans are existing today.

What is your alternative to this primordia reality from which all posterior beings owe their existence?[/quote]
[quote]newjaninev2 · 51-55, F
@yrger
you deny that there is a primordial reality

What does this mean?

'Primordial reality'?? Utter tosh.

Stop trying to use purple prose to obscure the complete lack of substance in your pronouncements.

In fact, stop making pronouncements altogether!

Say what you wish to say... say it simply, plainly, and directly.

Then stay in the thread where you say it (i.e. use the 'reply' button) because every time you run away you become more and more irrelevant to anything.[/quote]
[quote]yrger · 80-89, M
@newjaninev2 yrger · 80-89, M
@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@TheoreticSkeptic

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@TheoreticSkeptic

@Thodsis

@Mithraia


Addressing all atheists and also everybody else, I am Yrger the theist and author of the present thread.

I hope to get to know what kind of a world-view atheists have, including everyone else who do have a world-view that is positive or negative in effect toward God.

The God of concern is first before anything else the creator of everything that is not Himself.

My impression is that atheists are in the whole totally hostile emotionally against any world-view where God the creator has an indispensable presence.

Why are they so emotionally hostile to God?

So, hi atheists, why are you so emotionally hostile against God?[/quote]

[quote] yrger · 80-89, M
@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@TheoreticSkeptic

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@TheoreticSkeptic

@Thodsis

@Mithraia


Okay atheists, you deny that there is a primordial reality from which all posterior beings came from.

That ultimately explains why we humans are existing today.

What is your alternative to this primordia reality from which all posterior beings owe their existence?[/quote]
[quote]newjaninev2 · 51-55, F
@yrger
you deny that there is a primordial reality

What does this mean?

'Primordial reality'?? Utter tosh.

Stop trying to use purple prose to obscure the complete lack of substance in your pronouncements.

In fact, stop making pronouncements altogether!

Say what you wish to say... say it simply, plainly, and directly.

Then stay in the thread where you say it (i.e. use the 'reply' button) because every time you run away you become more and more irrelevant to anything.[/quote]
[quote]yrger · 80-89, M
@newjaninev2 yrger · 80-89, M
@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@TheoreticSkeptic

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@TheoreticSkeptic

@Thodsis

@Mithraia


Addressing all atheists and also everybody else, I am Yrger the theist and author of the present thread.

I hope to get to know what kind of a world-view atheists have, including everyone else who do have a world-view that is positive or negative in effect toward God.

The God of concern is first before anything else the creator of everything that is not Himself.

My impression is that atheists are in the whole totally hostile emotionally against any world-view where God the creator has an indispensable presence.

Why are they so emotionally hostile to God?

So, hi atheists, why are you so emotionally hostile against God?[/quote]

@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User


Addressing all atheists and also everybody else, I am Yrger the theist and author of the present thread.

I hope to get to know what kind of a world-view atheists have, including everyone else who do have a world-view that is positive or negative in effect toward God.

The God of concern is first before anything else the creator of everything that is not Himself.

My impression is that atheists are in the whole totally hostile emotionally against any world-view where God the creator has an indispensable presence.

Why are they so emotionally hostile to God?

So, hi atheists, why are you so emotionally hostile against God?

[quote] “Remember to look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Try to make sense of what you see [/quote]

Before you follow Hawkin’s advice, you need to do one thing. [c=009E4F]@yrger/chunkhead[/c] change your point of view.

@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User


Okay atheists, you deny that there is a primordial reality from which all posterior beings came from.

That ultimately explains why we humans are existing today.

What is your alternative to this primordia reality from which all posterior beings owe their existence?

@newjaninev2

Hi everyone, I am Yrger author of this thread, and I am addressing newj.


Please rewrite your post below, and express only one point the most important in your mind. As the post stands, you are incoherent.

[quote] newjaninev2 · 51-55, F
@yrger You are unable to comprehend that the Big bang was not the beginning of the universe, but rather the beginning of the expansion of the universe.

Ask yourself... what was going 'bang'?

As there is no known 'beginning' to the universe, there is no compelling necessity to postulate gods.

You accept that as a reasoned conclusion, because you have not argued against it.

therefore... atheist

You are unable to respond in any reasoned or germane manner to my statements that:

1. there's no proof that gods exist
2. there's no proof that gods don't exist
3. in any event, there’s no compelling necessity to even postulate gods, and, in any event, the postulation explains nothing (not even itself)... it merely tries to explain everything away.
4. therefore, I have no gods (I’m an agnostic atheist)

therefore... atheist.

Apparently anything and everything can be a god, so it follows that gods are indistinguishable from everything else, and their existence cannot be discerned, so there is no reason to even consider such a postulation

therefore... atheist.

I congratulate you on the efficient way you have used your claims of theism to destroy theism and thereby advance your atheism[/quote]


@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User



You all atheists are incoherent with your thinking manner, let me see if you can express what you think you understand in this text from Stephen Hawking:

[quote]“Remember to look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Try to make sense of what you see and wonder about what makes the universe exist. Be curious. And however difficult life may seem, there is always something you can do and succeed at. It matters that you don't just give up.”
― Stephen Hawking[/quote]

@yrger You are unable to comprehend that the Big bang was not the beginning of the universe, but rather the beginning of the [i]expansion[/i] of the universe.

Ask yourself... what was going 'bang'?

As there is no known 'beginning' to the universe, there is no compelling necessity to postulate gods.

You accept that as a reasoned conclusion, because you have not argued against it.

[b]therefore... atheist[/b]

You are unable to respond in any reasoned or germane manner to my statements that:

1. there's no proof that gods exist
2. there's no proof that gods don't exist
3. in any event, there’s no compelling necessity to even postulate gods, and, in any event, the postulation explains nothing (not even itself)... it merely tries to explain everything away.
4. therefore, I have no gods (I’m an agnostic atheist)

[b]therefore... atheist.[/b]

Apparently anything and everything can be a god, so it follows that gods are indistinguishable from everything else, and their existence cannot be discerned, so there is no reason to even consider such a postulation

[b]therefore... atheist.[/b]

I congratulate you on the efficient way you have used your claims of theism to destroy theism and thereby advance your atheism

@newjaninev2
[quote] newjaninev2 · 51-55, F
Your acceptance of atheism is, at least , a sign of progress.[/quote]

I am wondering how you can congratulate me that I have accepted atheism, I have not and will never accept atheism. You must be self-deluding.

Present to me verbatim my any post where I declare that I have accepted atheism. I am Yrger the theist in every thread I have authored and will author.




@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User

To you all atheists, please explain how and why the material-physical universe with stars and galaxies etc are working according to regular order, without the creator God having made them and operates them according to a most regular order.

[b][big][u]Asked and answered[/u][/big][/b]
This is what , the 20th time you asked the same question ? There’s nothing new to add to our answers. Apparently you don’t understand the word “[b]ultimate [/b]”
It means “final” which is why our answer never changes. You can keep repeating the question, but it’s cut and paste from here onwards, and that is the ultimate answer you get .

@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@TheoreticSkeptic

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@TheoreticSkeptic

@Thodsis

@Mithraia


Please pay the most focused attention to the text below in [b]bold[/b] and [i]italic[/i].

From Yrger the theist:
Hi atheists and everybody else whether atheists or not but who is rational and intelligent but negative toward the existence of God, would it be possible for me Yrger the theist here to ask you all guys to in not more than 50 words [b][i]tell me what is your concept of God?[/i][/b]

[b]BEEN THERE, DONE THAT[/b]
LOOKS LIKE YOU DEPLETED YOUR SUPPLIES OF LOGIC AND REASON.
You have to keep recycling.

Please pay the most focused attention to the text below in [b]bold[/b] and [i]italic[/i].

From Yrger the theist:
Hi atheists and everybody else whether atheists or not but who is rational and intelligent but negative toward the existence of God, would it be possible for me Yrger the theist here to ask you all guys to in not more than 50 words tell me [b][i]what is your concept of God?[/i][/b]

@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User

[b]Your acceptance of atheism is, at least , a sign of progress.[/b]

You say (on the basis of nothing except intellectual laziness) that your gods don't need a beginning.

If that assumption is in any way valid, then it's equally valid to assume that the universe didn't need a beginning.

In which case, there's no compelling necessity to even postulate the existence of gods. The entire postulation becomes unnecessary, and can be dispensed with.

So much for your gods.

[b]So, now that you have abandoned your gods, why are you still here trying to be noticed?[/b]

@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User

Hi atheists and everybody else whether atheists or not but who is rational and intelligent but negative toward the existence of God, would it be possible for me Yrger the theist here to ask you all guys to in not more than 50 words tell me what is your concept of God?

@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User

Hi atheists and everybody else whether atheists or not but who is rational and intelligent but negative toward the existence of God, would it be possible for me Yrger the theist here to ask you all guys to in not more than 50 words tell me what is your concept of God?

@SW-User

You ask, "So...who created God?"

God doesn't have to create God, because things do not require multiplying - unless they are dependent on another also dependent being to come into dependent existence.

God is the permanent self-existent spirit creator and operator of man and the universe and everything transient in nature.

Atheists think according to science, but science is concerned only with composite beings, while theists think on the transcendental level, by which theists see more things, including God, and understand how God exists and why.




@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User

@SW-User

You say, this is my argument:
“We can’t explain how the universe began, therefore it must be God.”

It is correct, because God is the "permanent self-existent spirit creator and operator of man and the universe and everything transient in nature."

Scientists tell us that the universe has a beginning, so we can implicate therefrom that God exists, see above.






@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User

@newjaninev2

I invite you to do commentaries on each of the following terms:

Cosmic
Microwave
Background
Radiation





@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User

@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User




Why are we here? How did the universe begin? According to the Boshongo people of central Africa, before us there was only darkness, water and the great god Bumba. One day Bumba, in pain from a stomach ache, vomited up the Sun. The Sun evaporated some of the water, leaving land. Still in discomfort, Bumba vomited up the Moon, the stars and then the leopard, the crocodile, the turtle and, finally, humans.

This creation myth, like many others, wrestles with the kinds of questions that we all still ask today. Fortunately, as will become clear, we now have a tool to provide the answers: science. When it comes to these mysteries of existence, the first scientific evidence was discovered in the 1920s, when Edwin Hubble began to make observations with a telescope on Mount Wilson in California. To his surprise, Hubble found that nearly all the galaxies were moving away from us. Moreover, the more distant the galaxies, the faster they were moving away. The expansion of the universe was one of the most important discoveries of all time. [b][i]This finding transformed the debate about whether the universe had a beginning.[/i][/b]

If galaxies are moving apart at the present time, they must therefore have been closer together in the past. If their speed had been constant, then they would all have been on top of one another billions of years ago. [b][i]Was this how the universe began?[/i][/b] At that time many scientists were unhappy with the universe having a beginning because it seemed to imply that physics had broken down. [i][b]One would have to invoke an outside agency, which for convenience one can call god[/b][/i], to determine how the universe began. They therefore advanced theories in which the universe was expanding at the present time but didn’t have a beginning.
Take our expert-led online cosmology course revealing the biggest mysteries in the universe

Perhaps the best known was proposed in 1948. It was called the steady state theory, and it suggested that the universe had existed for ever and would have looked the same at all times. [b][i]This last property had the great virtue of being a prediction that could be tested, a critical ingredient of the scientific method. And it was found lacking.[/i][/b]

Observational evidence to confirm the idea that the universe had a very dense beginning came in October 1965, with the discovery of a faint background of microwaves throughout space. The only reasonable interpretation is that this “cosmic microwave background” is radiation left over from an early hot and dense state. As the universe expanded, the radiation cooled until it became just the remnant we see today. Theory soon backed up this idea.

With Roger Penrose of Oxford University, I showed that if Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity is correct, then there would be a singularity, a point of infinite density and space-time curvature, where time has a beginning. The universe started off in the Big Bang and expanded quickly. This is called “inflation” and it was extremely rapid: the universe doubled in size many times in a tiny fraction of a second. Inflation made the universe very large, very smooth and very flat. However, it was not completely smooth: there were tiny variations from place to place. These variations eventually gave rise to galaxies, stars and solar systems. We owe our existence to these variations. If the early universe had been completely smooth, there would be no stars and so life could not have developed. We are the product of primordial quantum fluctuations. As will become clear, many huge mysteries remain. Still, we are steadily edging closer to answering the age-old questions: Where did we come from? And are we the only beings in the universe who can ask these questions?

This story by Stephen Hawking was originally published as the introduction of the New Scientist book The Origin of (Almost) Everything.
https://www.newscientist.com/question/how-did-the-universe-begin/


@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User

[i][b]Okay, atheists, it's your turn to cite texts indicating scientists state the universe has no beginning.
[/b][/i]

@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis




Okay, hi atheists, let you and I talk about the finding by scienstists that the material-physical universe has a beginning.

From me:
This breakthrough idea later became known as the Big Bang! The Big Bang was the moment 13.8 billion years ago when the universe [i][b]began*[/b][/i] as a tiny, dense, fireball that exploded. Most astronomers use the Big Bang theory to explain how the [b][i]universe began[/i][/b].

Cfr. do scientists state that the universe has a beginning
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=do+scientists+state+that+the+universe+has+a+beginning


Okay, atheists, it's your turn to cite texts indicating scientists state the universe has no beginning.



@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@newjaninev2

You have not any correct idea about the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

You absurdly refuse to factor in the Background, there is the God of nature.





@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User




Scientists tell us the material-physical universe has a beginning.

[b][i]I am correct.[/i][/b]

@SW-User

You say: "Why do you believe that God created everything that man encounters in nature. If it's by reasoning, then show your reasoning."

Here is my reasoning:
1. Nature is the material-physical universe of which man is a part of.
2. Scientists tell us the material-physical universe has a beginning.
3. Everything with a beginning implicates a creator God to bring it to its beginning.
4. Therefore, God exists as the creator of the universe i.e. nature.



@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User







Mithraia · 31-35, M
Why do you believe that God created everything that man encounters in nature. If it's by reasoning, then show your reasoning.

@DocSavage

You say: "If god can exist without a creator."
I gladly concur with you that God does not need a creator because God and creator are identical.

But the material-physical universe is composed of ultimately particles, and particles need a creator master-mind to bring them into existence as a composite being, and keep them in existence, that is why scientists state the universe has a beginning, i.e. in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.



@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis






DocSavage · M
If god can exist without a creator, the universe can exist without a god.
Prove us wrong or shut up.

Okay, hi atheists, let you and I talk about the finding by scienstists that the material-physical universe has a beginning.

From me:
This breakthrough idea later became known as the Big Bang! The Big Bang was the moment 13.8 billion years ago when the universe [i][b]began*[/b][/i] as a tiny, dense, fireball that exploded. Most astronomers use the Big Bang theory to explain how the [b][i]universe began[/i][/b].

Cfr. do scientists state that the universe has a beginning
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=do+scientists+state+that+the+universe+has+a+beginning


Okay, atheists, it's your turn to cite texts indicating scientists state the universe has no beginning.



@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

If god can exist without a creator, the universe can exist without a god.
Prove us wrong or shut up.

Why do you believe that God created everything that man encounters in nature. If it's by reasoning, then show your reasoning.