MrSmith Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 I haven't actually claimed that either of the two could exist without a creator. What I said is- 'the "no cause" theory is no more plausible than the creationist argument'. I can't comprehend the cause of either of them, which has been my position all along. So you believe in an entity but don't believe it is the creator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molly44 Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 i would love to believe in a creator, but then its the old argument, why does it, him, her, allow all the horrible suffering in the world?. and dont give me a religious explanation, about they will get their reward in heaven. like 20 virgins waiting for them. ha i wish!!. no when your gone, your gone. your carbon molecules with forever be recycled by the cosmos, but your soul? no that does not exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 So you believe in an entity but don't believe it is the creator.No. I believe in an entity, but I can't comprehend how it could exist without cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 No. I believe in an entity, but I can't comprehend how it could exist without cause. What sort of entity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 What sort of entity? See post 318. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 See post 318. I did. Is it conscious? Sentient? Can it behave in ways that contradict the laws of pysics as we know them? Does it intervene in human affairs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 I did. Is it conscious? Sentient? Can it behave in ways that contradict the laws of pysics as we know them? Does it intervene in human affairs? It's all of them, perhaps more. It's creation itself. What isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 It's all of them, perhaps more. It's creation itself. What isn't it? Are we talking mountains that think and trees that have aspirations, a sky that gets angry and seas with bipolar disorder? That kind of idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 The second variant becomes unnecessary only when you accept that all of creation must have sprang into existence without cause or reason. It becomes unnecessary the moment you accept that something can exist without cause. Otherwise you are guilty of special pleading - case three. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Are we talking mountains that think and trees that have aspirations, a sky that gets angry and seas with bipolar disorder? That kind of idea? No. Having done a little research, I'd describe what I feel as pantheism. (Dualist) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.