Why didn't a god create perfection?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Donray
Guru
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:25 pm
Location: CA

Why didn't a god create perfection?

Post #1

Post by Donray »

Why didn't a god create perfection?

One of the arguments for a god creator is that the universe is perfect. A matter of fact, everything a perfect god creates should be perfect.

the problem is that the universe is not perfect, Earth is not perfect, animals are not perfect, etc.

For example: what is purpose of black holes, why create galaxies that collide with each other, why is our galaxy on a collision course with another galaxy? Why create an Earth with plates that move and cause earthquakes and massive destruction? Why create virus? What is the purpose of the asteroid belt that cause destruction on Earth? Why cerate a brain what goes haywire?

There is not very much perfection why if a perfect god created it?

User avatar
ttruscott
Site Supporter
Posts: 11067
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: West Coast of Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Why didn't a god create perfection?

Post #81

Post by ttruscott »

Willum wrote:
ttruscott wrote:
Willum wrote: [Replying to post 71 by Peds nurse]

How is love in any way perfect?
When it is complete and at it's zenith.
That says absolutely nothing.
Especially if you are referring to Yahweh's alleged love.
Unsupported assertion, meaningless.
PCE Theology as I see it...

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

Escobar
Banned
Banned
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 8:27 am

Re: Why didn't a god create perfection?

Post #82

Post by Escobar »

[Replying to post 1 by Donray]


So what does "perfect" mean to you?

User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm

Post #83

Post by Blastcat »

[Replying to post 61 by JLB32168]




[center]
Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
Is it an opinion or a claim?
Part Eight: Abandoning the equivocations[/center]

JLB32168 wrote:
The rock in my front yard did not always exist.
Accepted.

JLB32168 wrote:
It lacked existence at one time so it had a lack.
Unacceptable.

IF the rock lacked existence, it did not HAVE anything.
Things have to exist before they can have things.

The rock, the "IT" here in question, if it did not YET EXIST could not be said to HAVE anything. The non-existing rock could not HAVE a "lack" or a "need". The rock that doesn't exist does not HAVE a temperature or a texture or a color or a weight, or a hardness, or a chemical composition. Sorry.. the rock that isn't there has NOTHING, IS nothing, can DO nothing, and cannot HAVE anything. That parrot, my dear fellow, is DEAD.

" I think an almost unbelievable amount of false philosophy has arisen through not realizing what 'existence' means."

Bertrand Russell - Logic and Knowledge

"The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument."

http://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resou ... ation.html
JLB32168 wrote:
It also lacks imperviousness to erosion as evidenced by the fact that it will disappear at some point in the future. That created things lack something is manifestly true since they lack the ability to will themselves into existence. Instead, they must be brought into existence.
A rock that does not exist LACKS everything. including existence! But that's a trick of the language. It's confusing, I admit. Using language poorly does that sometimes, in philosophical discussions. You said earlier that Lack=need.

Could we then stick with just ONE of those words? I prefer the word "need" because it makes the sentences shorter.

The rock that doesn't exist would NEED to exist before it needed anything at all. And I am not too sure if it makes any sense to say that a rock needs even AFTER it exists.

By the way, I'm curious.. what happened to your assertion that all things self-create?

Blastcat wrote:"I" had needs before "I" existed.
JLB32168 wrote:
I honestly don’t know why this is so difficult.
To many, Donald Trump makes a lot of sense.. half of the voters in the US don't happen to think so. You may think of your idea as making perfect, simple sense.

I do not.
Isn't that odd?

Welcome to debates !

I honestly believe that you don't know why this is so difficult. But sometimes, philosophy and talking about language is. It's interesting to me that you think you are clear when I ask you so many questions.. to help me understand, questions, that mostly go unanswered, by the way.

Perhaps if you answered more of my questions, this would get easier for you to reach agreements with your opponents.

Agreements by way of understanding one another is one of my main goals in debates.
I hope you don't choose to abandon the debate.

JLB32168 wrote:
You and I have not always existed and one day entropy will prevail and we will no longer exist as persons.
I agree.
We didn't always exist and we won't always exist.

We can only HAVE things like "needs" and "automobiles" and "feelings" if we DO exist. Not before or after.

You seem to be saying that we can have things before or after we have even existed.
Did you ever see a non-existing person drive a car?

All this going back and forth on "needs" is due to the equivocal way you use the word. The word "needs" in English has more than one meaning. You seem to be unaware, and mix them up.

You seem to mix up : "I need" as in "I need food" , with "The condition of existing needs" as in "In order to say something exists, it is a necessary condition that it is to be found in the universe".

So... I suggest that you do a little study of how other people use the words "needs" and "exist".

Try Oxford...

Need:
1 Require (something) because it is essential or very important rather than just desirable:

‘I need help now’
[with present participle] ‘this shirt needs washing’
[with infinitive] ‘they need to win tomorrow’

Notice that in the above examples, the words "I", "shirt" and "they" already exist.

And the word need has another usage:

2 [as modal], [with negative or in questions] Expressing necessity or obligation:
‘need I say more?’
‘all you need bring are sheets’

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/need

Notice that in the second sense, the word "need" expresses a NECESSITY.


I will also refer you to Oxford for the definition of "exist":

Exist:
"1 Have objective reality or being"

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/exist

Now, my dear friend, this is the problem I am facing with your reasoning.. I am convinced that it's a language problem.

You seem to be saying that what doesn't have objective reality or being can have needs. One of which, is the NEED to have objective reality or being.

In other words:

What doesn't have objective reality needs to have objective reality before it has objective reality.

Or:

It is necessary that things have to be real in the universe ( created, if you like ) before they can be said to exist.

To which I would say:

Of course.

Now.. the TROUBLE starts when you give something that does NOT exist some characteristics of things that DO exist.. like needs. Things that exist can have needs, true. But that is NOT true of things that do NOT exist.

Things that do not exist can have no needs. Things that have no existence in reality aren't REAL. If there is no real cake, and then SOMEONE "needs" to bake a real cake, that's the PERSON having the need, not the cake, because the cake does not exist.

Once the PERSON bakes the cake, THEN the cake will exist. It will then have characteristics that a cake can have.. like yumminess.. sweetness.. chocolatiness. and do on. But not before.

I don't think that you are understanding my point.
Perhaps if you asked me some QUESTIONS... you might.

I'm a big believer in ASKING QUESTIONS.. you might have noticed.

But of course, if you want to abandon the debate..
Fine.

But then, you have merely conceded.
And conceding.. is how one loses a debate, my friend.

Walking out ... that pretty much says it all.
Are you walking out the door, you seem to be looking at your watch a lot?

JLB32168 wrote:
We lack self-existence; we need to be brought into existence by an outside variable and an outside variable will see to it that we cease to exist as persons at some point in the future.
If "we" don't yet exist, "we" can not have any needs or lacks.
Something that already exists might "need" to bake a cake or create something a bit bigger, like your belief that a god created the entire universe.

JLB32168 wrote:
If that’s incomprehensible, then it would appear we have nowhere else to go in this conversation so this will be the last discussion I’ll have on need/lack as it relates to created things.
Then you leave the problem of how non-existent things can have needs.
I wonder what kinds of "needs" dead people have?

But notice you own words in your last comment above.. "as it relates to CREATED things".. I fully agree that things that EXIST can have needs. Not all of them, but some of them.. at least the sentient being can have them.

I'm not at all sure what a "cake" needs.
Icing?

Blastcat wrote:What doesn't exist, doesn't have anything, including "needs".
JLB32168 wrote:
Yes, but if it exists and didn’t always exist then it lacks self-existence and lack is need and need is imperfection.
If it exists, then it doesn't LACK existence, it has existence. ( however, I'm stretching the point for you.. "existence" isn't something that we can "have". It's something that we ARE )

Look.. sorry but you seem to think that the phrases "Didn't always exist" and "lacks self-existence" are different.

Try these on for size, maybe it will help you:

"Doesn't exist" = "Lacks self-existence"
"Exists" = "Has self-existence"


And these two:

What doesn't exist doesn't have needs.
What lacks self-existence doesn't have needs.


If "IT" isn't "there", then "it" doesn't exist.
"IT" can't have any characteristics ( such as existence or needs ) until "IT" exists.

And therefore, "IT" can't have anything.. including "needs" or "lacks".

"It" also cannot have a cup of tea.
"It" cannot have desires, challenges, loves, likes, hopes, dreams, wishes or suspicions.
If "It" is not alive, "It" does not learn to dance or smile at babies and puppies.

If something isn't THERE.. we can't see "It".
If something doesn't exist NOW.. there is no "It" now.

You seem confused.
You seem to give characteristics to what doesn't exist as if it DID exist...And that seems to be due to the ambiguous way you use the English language.

You are using the word "needs" in two different ways and confusing yourself.
If something doesn't exist, before it can exist, it has to somehow BECOME existing...

But that's not the same as saying that it needs something like "water" or "heat" or "sunlight". You might be having a lot of trouble explaining your theory because of how language is failing you.

But that's ok.. you understand yourself, and at least SOME people seem to understand you. Some people just seem to "Get it".

To others, your idea about needs and existing "just make" sense.

However, to me, your idea just "doesn't make sense".

And you couldn't be bothered with that problem, apparently.
So much for our mutual understanding.
And if you abandon the discussion, so much for debate.

If you abandon, you pull the plug, and you can do that.
You can pull out of the debate at any time.

You can certainly concede that you haven't been able to defend your position.
You can abandon and admit that you have nothing further to say on the topic.

You can just drop the claim.
As far as I'm concerned.. it didn't make sense in the first place.

JLB32168 wrote:
Again, if you cannot understand that then I have no way to break it down any further so we’ll just stop debating this topic if you don’t get it.
Yep, ok.
Since you can't explain it any better, and I still don't understand your reasoning, I am willing to drop it.

That's too bad, though.
Isn't it?

Blastcat wrote:Right now, you might as well be saying that "What does not exist, has needs."
JLB32168 wrote:
No – that is not at all what I said and what’s incomprehensible to me is how one cannot understand that if X exists now, but didn’t at one time, then X clearly lacks self-existence since it had to be created by something else.
I understand that if X does not exist, that X does NOT exist.
HOWEVER, I do not understand how X, if it does not exist CAN HAVE ANYTHING.

IF X does not EXIST, it can't OWN anything.. like "existence", or a lack of it, either.. If there is no X, there is no X to have a lack... if there is no X, there is no X to have a need.

You might as well be saying that a non-existing wallet needs money in it.

JLB32168 wrote:
The rest of your post is a restatement of the same thing seventeen ways ‘til Sunday.
Well, yeah.. I do try to rephrase my point in the hope that it will help you understand what I'm talking about. That tactic seems to backfire with you, doesn't it?

Perhaps if you asked me questions..
We clearly do not understand one another..

That's why I ask a lot of questions.
I wonder how well you understand MY point if I were to ask?

JLB32168 wrote:
If you don’t understand what I’m saying after this, then I can’t break it down any easier. If you still don’t get it then we have nothing further to discuss.
I suppose if you are going to abandon the discussion before it's resolved, that's that.
It's a pity that we haven't reached mutual understanding. One good thing about abandoning the discussion, is that Blastcat won't ask you questions about it anymore.

Pesky questioner that Blascat be !!

:)

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 72 times

Post #84

Post by Zzyzx »

.
JLB32168 wrote: . . . if some people are just good at shoveling taurine fertilizer and feigning confusion.
:warning: Moderator Warning

This remark is regarded as incivility. A warning after Final Warning makes you eligible for Probation. Unless martyrdom or self-destruction is an objective it would be wise to refrain from such remarks.




Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings are to be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm

Post #85

Post by Blastcat »

[Replying to post 74 by JLB32168]




[center]Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
Is it an opinion or a claim?
Part Nine Abandoning claims... one by one[/center]

Blastcat wrote:That statement seems to mean that creation had needs before it was created.
JLB32168 wrote:
Ttruscott understood quite clearly what I meant. My supposed lack of clarity isn’t the problem.
So you say.
Maybe ttrustcott can help explain what you mean.
Good luck with that.

But you seem to deny our problem. I'm dismayed, but not shocked.
I'm quite used to religiously motivated denialism.

Blastcat wrote:I don't think that anything other than existing SENTIENT beings can NEED anything, actually.
JLB32168 wrote:
Lava needs heat to remain molten. It lacks the ability to remain molten on its own.

Done.
Done?
I can see how "done" you are, alright. :)

Unfortunately, you are still equivocating on the meaning of "need".
IF lava exists, it might have "needs".. but not like human "needs".
Lava doesn't have minds, for one thing.

Not that I know of.
You probably mean that IF lava is to stay in a molten state it is a NECESSARY CONDITION to be of the right temperature.

It's quite anthropomorphic to say that lava sits there thinking about it's needs.
Do you see any problem at all with how you are talking about lava, as if it were a human being?

In post 33, by the way, you stated that: "I wasn’t always alive so I didn’t need anything one hundred years ago", to which, I fullheartedly agree.

If you didn't exist, you didn't need anything.

But now, you seem to have changed your mind about that.
It's a bit confusing.

Blastcat wrote:Yep, that's kinda what I'm thinking, too. A perfect being could have been perfect without the universe. The perfect being would have been perfectly fine without it. So, what happened all of a sudden?
JLB32168 wrote:
I don’t know and don’t wish to speculate. The theology says that God suddenly created.
Well, I'm not so blocked:

TO ME, It almost seems as if the perfect "God" suddenly discovered that it needed to create something. For some unknown reason, "God" lacked a creation. Who knows why, but "God" found it necessary to create. I THINK that some theologians might not agree that "God" suddenly created for NO REASON.

Or, perhaps, I can speculate that the so called "perfect God" does things for NO reason at all, and ISN'T so perfect. I can deal with a god being imperfect, I'm not attached to a particular theology.. So, "God" created for.. nuthin' :not for any need, not for any desire, not for any purpose, not for any requirement, not because of any lack.

But you don't know and you don't wish to speculate.
Not every Christian in here is so ready to write those words.

Bravo !!
As an agnostic and a skeptic, I have to approve.

This increases your credibility, by the way.

Blastcat wrote:You seem to be saying that the "singularity" doesn't rely on the laws of physics for it's existence.
JLB32168 wrote:
The laws of physics didn’t exist before the Big Bang.
And we know this because.....?

Blastcat wrote:Why oh why did "God" bother creating anything if it was so darn perfect?
JLB32168 wrote:
I don’t know and it doesn’t interest me enough to speculate.
Interesting.. your "God's" purposes don't interest you enough to speculate.
I thought that "God's" plans were a bit of a deal with Christians?

You know, teleology?

Blastcat wrote:Define the word "need". I'm not sure what you mean by it.
JLB32168 wrote:
Ask Ttruscott. He understood. Perhaps he can explain it better.
You can't define the word "need"?
That's a bit shocking to me.. We have been debating NEED for.. a long time now.. ONLY TO FIND OUT that you can't define the word.

AMAZING !!!


HEY TTRUSCOTT.. maybe you can explain the word "need" better !!!!!
Not sure if he will respond, he has chosen to ignore me.

( I seem to collect a lot of "ignores" ) :)

Sorry mate, you got yourself into this mess, you get yourself out of it.. right?
How about this.. how about you talk to someone, like TS, who can explain your ideas to you.. and then come back with that new info?

I would accept that.

And by the way, a good place to start learning what a word means is a "dictionary".
I tend to use Oxford, but any reputable dictionary would be a good place to start your investigation.

Blastcat wrote:You say that "God" possessed everything before it created the universe.
JLB32168 wrote:
No – I said that the singularity possessed everything that would be.
Like cakes?
Like gods?
Like this wonderful debate?
Like the laws of physics?

I thought you said above that "The laws of physics didn’t exist before the Big Bang."

I really think that you are grasping at straws, my friend.

Blastcat wrote:What caused a perfectly alone and perfectly fine "God" to suddenly... create?
JLB32168 wrote:
This is the same question as your first one.
Oops, that's right.

Blastcat a lot of mistakes makes.
( grammar especially are )

Blastcat wrote:You also stated that: "The laws of physics, however, (and every subsequent law in science) needed the singularity to exist before they ever came into being." Are you quite sure that the origins of the universe has been settled by the scientific community?
JLB32168 wrote:
It doesn’t interest me enough to discuss. Reject it if you’d like.
What an interesting admission!
I'm not convinced that you really mean that.

It seemed interesting enough for you to bring it up in the first place.
So, are you dropping the whole "origins of the universe" topic, too, now?

No more "Big Bang" no more "singularity", no more "laws of physics" no more "God created it"?

Blastcat wrote:Are you trying to explain yourself to TS or to me right now?
JLB32168 wrote:
The topic is a perfect or imperfect creation and its deity. I’m done discussing TS’ ability to understand what I said.
Good.
So, you ARE trying to explain yourself to me.
Another red herring gone.

We don't have to bother about if or how TS understands what you said.
I'm so happy.

But in your previous statement, you said that the origins of the universe ( creation for a creationist ) does NOT interest you. That's kinda confusing.

Does creation interest you or not?

Blastcat wrote:Are you at all implying that I am not being honest, sir? For the record, please.
JLB32168 wrote:
The topic is a perfect or imperfect creation and its deity – not the honesty (or lack) of a poster.
THE TOPIC?
I didn't ASK what the topic was.. I know what it is, and if I forget, I can always go back to POST 1.

What I actually I asked you was if you were implying that I am NOT BEING HONEST.

YES OR NO.

and FOR THE RECORD, please.

thank you

:)

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18629
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 147 times
Been thanked: 228 times
Contact:

Post #86

Post by otseng »

JLB32168 wrote: Your entire post is off topic. You may conclude whatever you want; I can’t be bothered and as always, I don’t place much stock in a person’s opinion of my credibility when that person is utterly bereft of credibility in my eyes. [smile]
Moderator Comment

Please do not make any comments about the credibility of another poster.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

User avatar
Peds nurse
Site Supporter
Posts: 2267
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 7:27 am

Post #87

Post by Peds nurse »

[Replying to post 82 by Blastcat]


Moderator Intervention

Blastcat, and JLB, it would seem that both of you are getting a little overheated about the issue at hand. Remember, that one only need address the topics of debate, please leave critical remarks out. This also goes for PM's as well. Be kind, be respectful, and simply have fun debating!

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

JLB32168

Post #88

Post by JLB32168 »

Blastcat wrote: But you seem to deny our problem. I'm dismayed, but not shocked. I'm quite used to religiously motivated denialism.
I’ve explained how inanimate objects can lack/need something and cannot explain it any simpler. If someone else understood it quite simply “as evidenced by ‘liking’ the post� then I’m at a loss for how to remedy the problem.
Blastcat wrote:Lava needs heat to remain molten. It lacks the ability to remain molten on its own.
Now you understand what a need/lack is. The needs or inanimate things are different from animate things, but both still have needs that make up for some lack (i.e. a)staying hot to remain molten or b)needing the sun to obtain food. If that’s confusing then I’m sorry and can’t explain it further
Blastcat wrote:TO ME, It almost seems as if the perfect "God" suddenly discovered that it needed to create something.
Okay. I understand you want to speculate on why God did what God did. I don’t so we’ll move along.

I don’t care about anyone’s opinion of my credibility. I have enough credibility to satisfy myself. If someone else disagrees I’m cool with that since I think s/he’s wrong.
Blastcat wrote:And we know this because.....?
I defer to men such as Hawking regarding when and if the laws of physics came into existence if they did indeed come into existence. Appeals to authority are valid when the authority is an expert in the field – this case being an expert in the field of theoretical physics.
Blastcat wrote:I thought that "God's" plans were a bit of a deal with Christians?
They are. I just don’t have interest in speculating on them presently.
Blastcat wrote:You can't define the word "need"?
I did. Ttruscott understood. You didn’t – even after I used dictionaries – two in fact.
Blastcat wrote:Like cakes?
I said that the singularity possessed everything. Logically that would mean that everything that now exists came from the singularity.
Blastcat wrote:What an interesting admission! I'm not convinced that you really mean that.
Oh well
Blastcat wrote:Good. So, you ARE trying to explain yourself to me. Another red herring gone.
I explained everything in as simplest a way that I could and can’t break it down any further. Oh well.
Blastcat wrote:Does creation interest you or not?
Yes.
Blastcat wrote: THE TOPIC? I didn't ASK what the topic was.. I know what it is, and if I forget, I can always go back to POST 1.
Okay, then that’s what we’ll be discussing.

Donray
Guru
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:25 pm
Location: CA

Re: Why didn't a god create perfection?

Post #89

Post by Donray »

ttruscott wrote:
marco wrote: It is all very well saying man brought sin and destruction but he didn't build tectonic plates.
No but the earth was created in accord with the evil free will decisions of the sinful people who must live here, to be a stage for their evil lives that speaks to or graphically points out we do not get a peaceful world because we did not deserve a perfectly benign world but as sinners we get a world of suffering and death!
Do you mean that your god knew that he would create sinful people and therefore created an imperfect earth for them from the start?

You are saying the same as I have been saying, your god created imperfect things and is therefore not perfect. Or that your god purposely created bad things because he knew all along that he would also create man imperfectly and sinful?

Donray
Guru
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:25 pm
Location: CA

Post #90

Post by Donray »

JLB32168 wrote:
Blastcat wrote: But you seem to deny our problem. I'm dismayed, but not shocked. I'm quite used to religiously motivated denialism.
I’ve explained how inanimate objects can lack/need something and cannot explain it any simpler. If someone else understood it quite simply “as evidenced by ‘liking’ the post� then I’m at a loss for how to remedy the problem.
Blastcat wrote:Lava needs heat to remain molten. It lacks the ability to remain molten on its own.
Now you understand what a need/lack is. The needs or inanimate things are different from animate things, but both still have needs that make up for some lack (i.e. a)staying hot to remain molten or b)needing the sun to obtain food. If that’s confusing then I’m sorry and can’t explain it further
Blastcat wrote:TO ME, It almost seems as if the perfect "God" suddenly discovered that it needed to create something.
Okay. I understand you want to speculate on why God did what God did. I don’t so we’ll move along.

I don’t care about anyone’s opinion of my credibility. I have enough credibility to satisfy myself. If someone else disagrees I’m cool with that since I think s/he’s wrong.
Blastcat wrote:And we know this because.....?
I defer to men such as Hawking regarding when and if the laws of physics came into existence if they did indeed come into existence. Appeals to authority are valid when the authority is an expert in the field – this case being an expert in the field of theoretical physics.
Blastcat wrote:I thought that "God's" plans were a bit of a deal with Christians?
They are. I just don’t have interest in speculating on them presently.
Blastcat wrote:You can't define the word "need"?
I did. Ttruscott understood. You didn’t – even after I used dictionaries – two in fact.
Blastcat wrote:Like cakes?
I said that the singularity possessed everything. Logically that would mean that everything that now exists came from the singularity.
Blastcat wrote:What an interesting admission! I'm not convinced that you really mean that.
Oh well
Blastcat wrote:Good. So, you ARE trying to explain yourself to me. Another red herring gone.
I explained everything in as simplest a way that I could and can’t break it down any further. Oh well.
Blastcat wrote:Does creation interest you or not?
Yes.
Blastcat wrote: THE TOPIC? I didn't ASK what the topic was.. I know what it is, and if I forget, I can always go back to POST 1.
Okay, then that’s what we’ll be discussing.
Why do depend on atheists for your science info? Why not the your god?

You do know all the scientists you use are attests? So, are they also correct that there is no god and your beliefs are like a kid how for no good reason believes in fairies?

You make statement then refuse to discuss them like your god lived in a place that had no time or space. I told you that you cannot justify your position. I guess that speaks to your credibility and knowledge any topic on your god.

Post Reply