It created itself. There is no "who", what a homocentric question.
Why God doesn't exist
- Thread starter earth
- Start date
It created itself. There is no "who", what a homocentric question.
I'm going answer Mike47’s question by giving him a homework assignment. I’m working on it. Then when he asks me a question like that last one. I’ll just tell him to go do his homework.
.
This would need some scientific support.
Can you think of any other examples of things that create themselves? Do we have any way of knowing what this means?
To be clear: whatever problems your statement has, and I think it has some problems in a scientific forum, these problems do not suggest a God. Nevertheless your statement is speculation.
As we seem to have a penchant for such things, God is man's first real fictional superhero.
He is the original caped crusader, ridding the world of evil and saving us from ourselves. Only in this vein does He exist, a comic book character created from the minds of men.
He is the original caped crusader, ridding the world of evil and saving us from ourselves. Only in this vein does He exist, a comic book character created from the minds of men.
Last edited:
It's not speculation at all, it is established science. One must look no further than the natural physical world to explain the evolution of all life, or various other traits that exemplify "our world".
Can't help noticing how the question keeps changing.
Is the question "does God exist", the same question as "does a God exist"?
No, they're different, the second question assumes that God is a singular entity, of which there is at least one copy. The first is more "general" somehow. Isn't it important, when a question is asked, to determine what is being asked?
What would you say if someone told you: "I can show you God, where and what God is, and you will realize that you are that; you will understand that God is part of you, as much as everything else is part of you and your experience"
Then if this someone was correct and you do see and realize, does that mean you know "a" God, or that you "know God"?
Is the question "does God exist", the same question as "does a God exist"?
No, they're different, the second question assumes that God is a singular entity, of which there is at least one copy. The first is more "general" somehow. Isn't it important, when a question is asked, to determine what is being asked?
What would you say if someone told you: "I can show you God, where and what God is, and you will realize that you are that; you will understand that God is part of you, as much as everything else is part of you and your experience"
Then if this someone was correct and you do see and realize, does that mean you know "a" God, or that you "know God"?
Get lost moron !.
This is an excerpt from the wiki article Evolution. In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Though changes produced in any one generation are normally small, differences accumulate with each generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the population, a process that can culminate in the emergence of new species.
Read the wiki article and then read Charles Darwin’s book the “origin of species.” Once you're done with this homework assignment, I have more to give you.
You can have your religion, however, I don't want your dumb questions, dude.
You can call me dumb ass or moron or anything like that, however don't start swearing at me.
Last edited:
The theory of evolution does just fine and Doreen has nothing to replace it. I understood you meant evolution and know the creation word you used should have been evolution, however you gave Mike47 a quip.
Last edited:
I don't know why you are now talking about evolution. That is a very small subprocess in an already existing universe.
You said the universe created itself. Run that one by a physicist and ask them if someone has proved that.
You might also ask them what that statement means. Can you think of anything else that creates itself? Was it present before it started to create? If not, how did it start creating?
You made a mystical statement. Which is fine, but it makes for poor argument against theism.
The topic of the thread is "Why god doesn't exist" and people like Doreen stroll in and change the subject.
After a couple posts by Doreen I recognized she was talking about evolution but coming from her it was hard to make heads or tails of it. I'm glad she has me on ignore.
p.s. I never experienced her tactic before, post in my thread and then tell me she is putting me on ignore and then continue posting in my thread?
After a couple posts by Doreen I recognized she was talking about evolution but coming from her it was hard to make heads or tails of it. I'm glad she has me on ignore.
p.s. I never experienced her tactic before, post in my thread and then tell me she is putting me on ignore and then continue posting in my thread?
Last edited:
Gosh, no I wasn't. I really do hope you will reread my earlier response to Sarkus.
I was pointing out that everyone believes in things that cannot be proved once I saw condescension towards theists for doing this. I focused on the idea of a continuous self. I was clearly not interested in evolution. I merely pointed out that all the matter in our bodies is replaced. And that our overall pattern changes - new memories, new neural connections, different levels of all sorts of things like hormones, changes in mass, changes in behavior, etc. Evolution had absolutely nothing to do with it. Evolution describes processes transcending individuals. So it has nothing to do with a person at 5 being the same person at 25. Absolutely nothing.
Perhaps you thought I meant meiosis.
I was pointing out that everyone believes in things that cannot be proved once I saw condescension towards theists for doing this. I focused on the idea of a continuous self. I was clearly not interested in evolution. I merely pointed out that all the matter in our bodies is replaced. And that our overall pattern changes - new memories, new neural connections, different levels of all sorts of things like hormones, changes in mass, changes in behavior, etc. Evolution had absolutely nothing to do with it. Evolution describes processes transcending individuals. So it has nothing to do with a person at 5 being the same person at 25. Absolutely nothing.
Perhaps you thought I meant meiosis.
In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Though changes produced in any one generation are normally small, differences accumulate with each generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the population, a process that can culminate in the emergence of new species.
I think this defines at least part of the subject you were talking about.
I think this defines at least part of the subject you were talking about.
No. absolutely, categorically not.
I was not talking about changes within a species over time, not between species over time. I was not talking about evolution.
When you are five you are a certain mass, you have certain patterns of neuronal connections, you have certain hormone levels, you have a set of memories, and so on.
Why you are 25 radical changes have been made to these. Your mass has more than doubled. Your blood chemistry is likely quite different. Ratios of muscle to fat are likely different. Your brain is radically different. You have a very different set of memories. You've lost quite a number and gained a huge amount. Your behavior is different. Your relations are different. Your hair color may have changed. And so on.
(note, none of this has to do with evolution)
And yet we say 'this is the same person'. Even though the pattern is different and the matter is different.
And yet people believe in the continuous self. That we must be the same person over time.
There is no proof of this. It might be possible. But even then, from a materialists point of view, it seems to me one would have to say, we are somewhat the same person and then give some %. And I don't think 50% would be a rational one. I deal with this in more complex fashion in the response to Sarkus earlier and focus on the issue of identity.
God is myth and I would rather keep the subject to using Scientific theorys and facts to defeat such a myth.
This is how I beat the machine they call God. A grain of truth in a fable about able.
Last edited:
The universe did NOT create itself by itself and there is absolutely no evidence to support your ignorance .
Agreed. Time is the same thing as change. It isn't an "entity," it's just a concept. It's our measure of change.
If a deity is changing, time exists. If time exists, we have a problem: no deity can exist for an infinite amount of time prior to creating the universe. Which means:
1. God isn't eternal.
2. God didn't create the universe.
3. There is no God.
If you think God can somehow "work around" these problems from "outside" the system, then you think God can resolve paradoxes (which she can't). I.E., you believe God could draw a two dimensional object which simultaneously qualifies as a square and a circle.
Good luck with that.