Best argument against god

[SciWriter]

All you've done is ignore my counter-argument and repeat yourself.

You are just declaring and pronouncing fiats of your theory to magically adapt to anything and everything. That is the mark of making things up to fit any twist or turn.


It must also be that the basis of all is eternal in duration and infinite in extent, or it wouldn’t be the all, and thus it could have had no creation and so thus there can be no Creator.

We need to identify the simplest state. What would it be?


Cause and effect must also be abandoned at the level of the basis since there can be nothing beneath it.

An equation must be substituted instead.

 

[SciWriter]

All you've done is ignore my counter-argument and repeat yourself.

I got you to realize about a mind—an Intelligence.

 

[Big Chiller]

You are just declaring and pronouncing fiats of your theory to magically adapt to anything and everything. That is the mark of making things up to fit any twist or turn.

There's no use pretending that you're claim is based on any tangible evidence either and all I did was counter your claim while you pulled at straws in post #100.

 

[SciWriter]

There's no use pretending that you're claim is based on any tangible evidence either and all I did was counter your claim while you pulled at straws in post #100.

Since any given thing must be disqualified as first and fundamental, then the only workable basis for the prime mover is nothing, which cannot last, as even seen by scientists who emptied a large metal cylinder of everything—and yet something (sum-things) still appeared, thus making the equation be a summation to zero (a balance of nothing). This is the pair production of opposite particles. Nothing is quite the opposite of God.

So, I use real information rather than just making up notions of higher beings to account for us and our universe (which Being, by the way, would still have to be accounted for all the more by your reasoning).

There is truly and literally nothing to make anything or God of—and so that must be the answer. (nothing). We even have many indications of a zero-sum universe.

Can you say what there was just lying around somehow (with undefined particulars) as some kind of stockpile to make stuff or God out of?

There are no irreducible complexities simply because complexities must have parts that are more basic than the system itself.

 

[Big Chiller]

Since any given thing must be disqualified as first and fundamental, then the only workable basis for the prime mover is nothing, which cannot last, as even seen by scientists who emptied a large metal cylinder of everything—and yet something (sum-things) still appeared, thus making the equation be a summation to zero (a balance of nothing). This is the pair production of opposite particles. Nothing is quite the opposite of God.

Correction, since any given thing we can understand or observe we can never claim to know all. We cannot understand what is necessarily impossible to understand.

 

[SciWriter]

Correction, since any given thing we can understand or observe we can never claim to know all. We cannot understand what is necessarily impossible to understand.

It's still much better to use actual known information from tangibles than to outright declare invisible unknown intangibles as truth and fact.

 

[spidergoat]

The creator is neither simple nor complicated because the creator doesn't fall into such a category that is why it is necessarily impossible to understand any detail about the creator. The creator simply has no physical description.

Then how would you know about it? What interaction could it have with the physical?

God is necessarily undetectable.

Necessary to justify irrational faith.

This is just conjecture where you're assuming the Creator is temporal and requires efforts it is only the created who are in this predicament.

You seem to know quite a lot about something that you claim is unknowable.

 

[SciWriter]

Some invisible, undetectable entity would be of no concern or ramification in any way to how we live our lives, nor could it expect to be. Thus, there would still be the complete freedom to be.

 

[kx000]

Some invisible, undetectable entity would be of no concern or ramification in any way to how we live our lives, nor could it expect to be. Thus, there would still be the complete freedom to be.

Reality to us might not be as real as we think.

 

[SciWriter]

Reality to us might not be as real as we think.

Would reality be unreal?