felixomor:


Again, you ask "who" and "what" which are both indicators of matter and if u read through my first post, I clearly said God is not bound by time, space nor matter. And as such, those three are not sufficient to explain Him.

So I can only but attempt to answer.
As for "who?"He has been called by different names in times past and has revealed Himself in different forms to different generations.

As for "who is His Word?" His Word is that which Came from Him and was Powerful enough to assemble this entity of time, space and matter which you and I call the universe.

As I said, these are limited explanations, because I myself as regards my flesh, is bound by time, space and matter.

felixomor:


Again, you ask "who" and "what" which are both indicators of matter and if u read through my first post, I clearly said God is not bound by time, space nor matter. And as such, those three are not sufficient to explain Him.

So I can only but attempt to answer.
As for "who?"He has been called by different names in times past and has revealed Himself in different forms to different generations.

As for "who is His Word?" His Word is that which Came from Him and was Powerful enough to assemble this entity of time, space and matter which you and I call the universe.

As I said, these are limited explanations, because I myself as regards my flesh, is bound by time, space and matter.

jonbellion:
lol nice try but the creator of the universe is NOT the Abrahamic God and his weirdo son

CeoMYN:

Stop running, you said you know the creator.

felixomor:


Please clearly show me in detail, how and where I ran to?

CeoMYN:

I said since you know the creator and call the creator him, you should tell me who he is.

felixomor:


And how did I not explain "Who" he is?
How did I run, looking at that answer I gave?

CeoMYN:

To know is to have knowledge, your answer shows you have no knowledge of the creator.

felixomor:


And yet I was able to tell u He has been called by different names.

Well, I already have a feel of ur mind.
A honest person would have gone ahead to ask "which names"?

But u clearly went ahead to show that u didnt even read the post. I even doubt if u read the original answer I first wrote. No wonder u kept asking "what' and "who" all over the thread.

I know your mind already.
Well done.

CeoMYN:

You should have mentioned them but I knew where you were arriving to.

felixomor:


So that u would jump over them with out reading as u have done now?

Nah! Sorry!
Jesus said dont cast your diamonds to pigs . They would swallow it in a hurry and come for your neck.

And that's exactly what u have done here.
Nothing else.

donnffd:


You cant make claims of what is the most complex thing in the universe when you are limited to a very tiny fraction of it, you dont know whats out there!

If you said DNA is the most complex thing in the universe known to man, it would be a more valid statement in which i would still disagree with, i would say the human MIND is the most complex object in the universe known to man.

felixomor:


The answer to your question is No.

The universe cant exist without being created.

We were all created and fitted with a brain by a higher intelligence.

However, the brain has been programmed for the physical body to only function based on time, space and matter.
Thats why every question you can ever ask is based on one of those three.
The question birthed by your reasoning "who created the creator" is based on matter and also, time.

These two, time and matter are both human commodities. They were created also. So the Creator definitely is not bound by them.
He exists outside of them.

Thats why the bible figuratively says a thousand years is like a day in the eyes of God.
He is not bound by our time.

So, the creator needs no creator. He would need if he was bound by time and matter, but He is not bound by what he created.

To understand this better, I will suggest you study the topic "The Origin of Time"

That will give you some better light.

Shalom!

CeoMYN:
I hope you read where I said I left religious God(s) so kindly leave my thread

Immorttal:
You were making sense until you start drawing references from the bible.

KingEbukasBlog:


Are you a deist ?

LiberaDeus:


I am an agnostic atheist.

Atheist to all religious gods

Agnostic to a supreme intelligent being existing outside our universe

KingEbukasBlog:


Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

But according to Robert Flint :

"... it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other"

CeoMYN:
I hope you read where I said I left religious God(s) so kindly leave my thread

LiberaDeus:


Yes I meant universe known to man. The existence of design in animals is the backbone of a belief in god.

But even if we find more complex creatures in distant planets it only throws the gaping question back again which is ' was there intelligence behind some of it '

damogul:


The religious Gods never had you in the first place so when you allegedly left you thought you were leaving the religious Gods when in essence you left your idea of following religious Gods and not actual following them on their terms. It was all about you.

damogul:


The religious Gods never had you in the first place so when you allegedly left you thought you were leaving the religious Gods when in essence you left your idea of following religious Gods and not actual following them on their terms. It was all about you.

donnffd:


The idea that intelligence must be behind complexity stems from our own species and our effects on the world. Humans have always been a very unimaginative species, we believe the world and the universe always work according to the way we are and understand, this is so far from the truth. Evolution is just one field where you can have complexity from simpler forms without any input from a designer or intelligence, why should an alien intelligence arise any differently?

taurus25:
Can the universe exist without a cause?...

This is a nice question, although not new, it does sound fresh everytime.

Did the universe really begin at a certain time?....i know the obvious answer that comes to mind is a resounding yes, because basically every belief system, ideology and empirical evidence seem to suggest so, but then again what if everything we know about the universe is wrong?.

Scientifically, up unto the closest we've observed, it seems the universe began roughly 14 billion years ago. This theory, the big bang, puts scientists in a very tight corner, because it seems to suggest that the universe began, but how exactly it began(the cause) , is experimentally indeterminable.

Why is this so?... laws of physics, which by what we understand to produce effect from a preceeding cause was not present before the universe emerged. In other words the universe might have began without a cause.

This doesnt make much sense, does it?... no worries physicists are finding a way around such a situation where the universe would emerge from nothing. One of such, was proposed by world famous physicists Stephen Hawking, called the no boundary condition. This hypothesis is a way around the universe having to have a cause or even begining atall ....it uses a concept in theoretical physics known as real and imaginary time, which are at right angle to each other and imaginary time being essentially as real as real time...wtf right?. Its a nice idea but so far so good no concrete observational support.

In science sometimes nothing is ever completely sure, which to me is not entirely suprising considering the random nature of the universe( look up the EM drive to understand what i mean). But it still remains the best way to understand nature.

Metaphysically.......loading

CeoMYN:

Nice one sir

taurus25:
Thanks, I modified.

jonbellion:
lol they made thier God
Omininpotemt
Omnipresent
Omimiscient
Ominibenevolent
Sooo lemme get this straight
They have an all powerful god that is all knowing and is everywhere all at once and he is extremely kind and has a personal relationship with them and answers thier prayers like a genie at their beck and call
Woooow
RIP Logic
Christianity: Murders logic in cold blood

rhektor:



Are you an atheist? If you are then let me help you a bit with this write up by Matt Slick.

Atheism is, essentially, a negative position. It is not believing in a god or actively believing there is no God or choosing to not exercise any belief or non-belief concerning God, etc. Whichever flavor is given to atheism, it is a negative position.

In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the validity of atheism. There are no "proofs" that God does not exist in atheist circles; at least, none that I have heard--especially since you can't prove a negative regarding the existence of God. Of course, that isn't to say that atheists haven't attempted to offer some proofs that God does not exist. But their attempted proofs are invariably insufficient. After all, how do you prove there is no God in the universe? How do you prove that in all places and all times there is no God? You can't. Besides, if there was proof of God's non-existence, then atheists would be continually using it. But we don't hear of any such commonly held proof supporting atheism or denying the existence of God. The atheist position is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove since it is an attempt to prove a negative. Therefore, since there are no proofs for atheism's truth and there are no proofs that there is no God, the atheist must hold his position by faith.

Faith, however, is not something atheists like to claim as the basis of adhering to atheism. Therefore, atheists must go on the attack and negate any evidences presented for God's existence in order to give intellectual credence to their position. If they can create an evidential vacuum in which no theistic argument can survive, their position can be seen as more intellectually viable. It is in the negation of theistic proofs and evidences that atheism brings its self-justification to self-proclaimed life.

There is, however, only one way that atheism is intellectually defensible, and that is in the abstract realm of simple possibility. In other words, the atheist would have to propose that it may be possible that there is no God.1 But stating that something is possible doesn't mean that it is a reality, or that it is wise to adopt the position. If I said it is possible that there is an ice cream factory on Jupiter, does that make it intellectually defensible or a position worth adopting merely because it is a possibility? Not at all. Simply claiming a possibility based on nothing more than it being a possible option, no matter how remote, is not sufficient grounds for atheists to claim viability in their atheism. They must come up with more than "It is possible," or "There is no evidence for God;" otherwise, there really must be an ice cream factory on Jupiter, and the atheist should step up on the band wagon and start defending the position that Jupiterian ice cream exists.

https://carm.org/is-atheism-viable

Lucasiangrey:
only if you have been outside the box,then will you know the box even exist.you know you are inside a box!,you knew that because you have been on the outside.therefore you are a god and the same time man!.or you just speculated?

edogho:

Been outside my body b4 n I know the feeling of being. Concept of god has been corrupted n exploited since times any ruddy mind can grasp anything.

Being is everything. The sun creates the rest. Its all just I illusions. I mean when mind exceeds matter.
When u break all you see down (man included) to the lowest building particle, you'll find the truth in the words "everything is vanity".....

Gud morrow bro.