lambsbread:

How do you want to use the word Creator and intelligence for something you said exist outside the universe. Isn't all these concepts invented by dwellers of the universe?

If I go by your logic, I will say creation happened by chance. Chance doesn't make sense to you but it makes sense outside the universe before big bang happened.

You're just talking in the nonsense bro...
Inventing unfounded theories out of your wishful thought and using them as the basis of your argument.

If you're only interested in telling us the mumbo jumbo of what you know without seeing the importance of telling us how you know, then go and rest.

I can use the word "creator" because I am part of the universe and bound to its laws. But it is invalid for me to ask what created the creator because the creator exists outside the laws of the universe where everything must have a beginning (created). God cannot be part of what he created and following its laws because you can't create a robot and be part of the robot. You can't build a house and be part of the structural members of the house like the cement, block and roof.

When it comes to the word "intelligence" it is not invalid to say the creator is intelligent because the creator itself created the intelligence in the universe that we are observing. Only intelligence can create intelligent beings. Chance cannot create intelligence beings if you actually know what it means to be intelligent.

There is no unfounded theories here. It's all reasoning to tell you that God and man doesn't exist in the same state, so you can't question God's existence from the perspective of the state or laws which you exist. When you create a robot it wouldn't exist in the same state with you and the robot shouldn't use the conditions in its own state to describe you.

When you ask what created God it means you are trying to cross the boundary of the scope and laws of your existence into another scope of existence not meant for humans. Your quest will definitely be a dead end which doesn't mean a creator doesn't exist. It simply means you are trying to walk into God's own scope of existence which you shouldn't be.

Nefort:

I thought you said evolution is behind creation? If you believe things came into existence through evolution then it means evolution created you. And as long as evolution created you it can also modify you. So what evidence are you talking about?

Don't deflect. What evidence do you have for your claim?

Nefort:

Whatever you regard as logical or illogical is as a result of what the universe shaped your mind to perceive. Since God doesn't exist in the same state and environment with us or subject to the laws of the universe, then your illogical and logical cannot be the same with God's own illogical and logical.

Except that God can not be illogical, and it's humans who can't seem to see that.

Nefort:

I can use the word "creator" because I am part of the universe and bound to its laws. But it is invalid for me to ask what created the creator because the creator exists outside the laws of the universe where everything must have a beginning (created). God cannot be part of what he created and following its laws because you can't create a robot and be part of the robot. You can't build a house and be part of the structural members of the house like the cement, block and roof.

You cannot use the word "creator"(a human construct) to qualify a being that exist outside that construct else such being becomes bound by the laws of the universe.

@bolded, still using an analogy limited by the laws of universe to describe a being who supposedly isnt bound by these laws. Are you not the one that said things work differently outside the universe?

If that is the case, outside the universe, it might be possible that one can create a robot and be part of the robot!

[s]When it comes to the word "intelligence" it is not invalid to say the creator is intelligent because the creator itself created the intelligence in the universe that we are observing. Only intelligence can create intelligent beings. Chance cannot create intelligence beings if you actually know what it means to be intelligent.[/s]

All theories of "what you know" without "How you know".
How did you know there is a creator?
How did you know he created intelligence?
How did you know chances can't create intelligent beings?

There is no unfounded theories here. It's all reasoning to tell you that God and man doesn't exist in the same state, so you can't question God's existence from the perspective of the state or laws which you exist. When you create a robot it wouldn't exist in the same state with you and the robot shouldn't use the conditions in its own state to describe you.

They are not reasoning. It is only reasoning when you put forth theories and explain how you arrived at them.
Else they are just your wishful thought.

How did you know god and man don't exist in the same state? Explain how you know with verifiable evidence.

When you ask what created God it means you are trying to cross the boundary of the scope and laws of your existence into another scope of existence not meant for humans. Your quest will definitely be a dead end which doesn't mean a creator doesn't exist. It simply means you are trying to walk into God's own scope of existence which you shouldn't be.

Lol. Special pleading...
Speak for yourself bro. I have crossed no scope of my existence. You started to tell me mumbo jumbo of what happened before the universe and you're not cool with me taken it further than you can.

This is interesting...

lambsbread:

You cannot use the word "creator"(a human construct) to qualify a being that exist outside that construct else such being becomes bound by the laws of the universe.

Humans are NOT the ones that bind objects to the laws of the universe. Humans only created the word "creator" as a reference, but humans did not create the concept of a creator. The concept of a creator is only there because things in the universe has a beginning. Using the word "creator" doesn't mean God is subject to the laws of the universe. When I mention the word MOON while on earth it doesn't mean the moon is part of the earth and subject to the laws on earth. It's just a reference. Therefore it still makes sense for me to use the word "creator" to refer to something not part of the universe. When you ask "what created the creator?" that is when you are actually subjecting God to the laws of the universe.

If that is the case, outside the universe, it might be possible that one can create a robot and be part of the robot!

Your statement above is invalid because a creator who is outside the universe cannot create a universe and become part of the universe while outside the universe.

All theories of "what you know" without "How you know".
How did you know there is a creator?
How did you know he created intelligence?
How did you know chances can't create intelligent beings?

And how do you know there is no creator since you believe there is no creator? The way you give me reasons for believing there is no creator is also the same way I am giving you reasons that there is a creator.

They are not reasoning. It is only reasoning when you put forth theories and explain how you arrived at them.
Else they are just your wishful thought.

My theories and explanations are there but you dismiss them. So it's not my fault you dismiss them.

How did you know god and man don't exist in the same state? Explain how you know with verifiable evidence.

If God and man are existing in the same state then we should be able to see and touch God like we relate with other humans and objects sharing the same state and scope of existence in the universe. But why can't we see or touch God? That is simply because we don't exist in the same state with God. This is the evidence.

Nefort:

Humans are NOT the ones that bind objects to the laws of the universe. Humans only created the word "creator" as a reference, but humans did not create the concept of a creator. The concept of a creator is only there because things in the universe has a beginning. Using the word "creator" doesn't mean God is subject to the laws of the universe. When I mention the word MOON while on earth it doesn't mean the moon is part of the earth and subject to the laws on earth. It's just a reference. Therefore it still makes sense for me to use the word "creator" to refer to something not part of the universe. When you ask "what created the creator?" that is when you are actually subjecting God to the laws of the universe.


Your statement above is invalid because a creator who is outside the universe cannot create a universe and become part of the universe while outside the universe.


And how do you know there is no creator since you believe there is no creator? The way you give me reasons for believing there is no creator is also the same way I am giving you reasons that there is a creator.



My theories and explanations are there but you dismiss them. So it's not my fault you dismiss them.


If God and man are existing in the same state then we should be able to see and touch God like we relate with other humans and objects sharing the same state and scope of existence in the universe. But why can't we see or touch God? That is simply because we don't exist in the same state with God. This is the evidence.

If we can use actions like "create" outside the universe, then other human actions like "eat" becomes valid. Of course, God can't exist without food outside the universe. God requires energy to create and how does he get energy if not from "eating" food?

My statement is very valid. Things work differently outside the universe. Hence anything created from outside the universe can as well become part of the creator.


What you have been dishing out as evidences are just evidences begging for evidence!
So because you can't see or touch me means we don't exist in the same state?
Have you seen God before to know he exists in different state?
What is your evidence that God cannot be seen or touched?
You're just keep popping up unfounded theories here and there.
I'm learning from you Sha...

lambsbread:

If we can use actions like "create" outside the universe, then other human actions like "eat" becomes valid. Of course, God can't exist without food outside the universe. God requires energy to create and how does he get energy if not from "eating" food?

This is wrong. The fact that we can use the action word "create" to describe the action of a creator outside the scope of universe doesn't mean we can attach every other words associated with the laws of the universe to the creator. The word "create" can be valid outside the scope of the universe, meaning something can be fabricated outside the universe, but that doesn't mean the word "eat" will also be valid because the existence outside the universe may not depend on food to survive. A human being and a bacteria both belong to scope of the universe but you can't use the word "mitosis" on a human being because a human being doesn't split in two like a bacteria. But the word "die" both applies to a human being and a bacteria. A cow ruminates but a human being doesn't ruminate. This shows things in existence can share the same words but that doesn't mean they belong to the same state or form to make them share every word and description.

My statement is very valid. Things work differently outside the universe. Hence anything created from outside the universe can as well become part of the creator.

Of course you are correct. I can create something and make it part of me. BUT I cannot create something and become part of it. Like I said before, you cannot create a robot and become part of the robot. But you can create a robot make the robot become part of you as the creator. So God cannot create a universe and become part of the universe. But God can create a universe and make it part of him and still not sharing attributes with what he created.

What you have been dishing out as evidences are just evidences begging for evidence!
So because you can't see or touch me means we don't exist in the same state?
Have you seen God before to know he exists in different state?
What is your evidence that God cannot be seen or touched?
You're just keep popping up unfounded theories here and there.
I'm learning from you Sha...

If you and God exists in the same state then go ahead and create your own universe. If you cannot do this then what does it tell you? It tells you that you don't possess the same attributes (state) with God. So what is the evidence that you are not in the same state with God? Because you can't create your own universe.

Well, I want to go to paradise but too bad its just a myth, there is no reason for him to put me in hell for not believing in what appears to be a myth. But if the god of your religion still insist on doing that, well I just get to know what kind of god he is.