LordReed:

Oga go answer person wey give you query, no dey add blues for my reggae.

Pẹ̀lẹ́!

MaxInDHouse:


This is how you came in between the OP and myself:



And i told you that both are humans so they can easily resolve their issues all they needed is to calmly address the politicians involved if they don't want killings. But whoever picks up weapons in support of either side is not a lover of peace.

So i'm not supporting any side!

You forgot you were the one who said:

MaxInDHouse:


You don't need to demonize one politician just to make the other look like an angel.
I told you from the onset:



So if the ruler of Russia decides to extend his boarders in order to make Ukraine part of Russia there's no crime after all he's not making Ukrainians slaves to Russians rather he's trying to reclaim states that broke away from Russia. Then Ukrainians only need to surrender to the will of Russia their former country instead of planning a siege which has led to killings between the two countries.

So I asked you if Ukraine too should take such stance, would you say it's also okay ?

I thought you support the action of Putin who wanted to annex Ukraine!
So I asked
1. Would it be okay if Ukraine also demand that Russia be annexed into their country?
2. If both is okay: how do you resolve the problem?

You see why I said: you never answered my questions?

TenQ:

You forgot you were the one who said:
So I asked you if Ukraine too should take such stance, would you say it's also okay ?
I thought you support the action of Putin who wanted to annex Ukraine!
So I asked
1. Would it be okay if Ukraine also demand that Russia be annexed into their country?
2. If both is okay: how do you resolve the problem?
You see why I said: you never answered my questions?

From the standpoint of Jesus and his true disciples both are politicians (those that depends on the power of might) so whoever has more power decides what should be.
That is the order from time immemorial so it's no big deal, whoever has more power rules as in dominate the other!
Only God's Kingdom will come and settle all that so until then we surrender to the one who has more power never to support either side in taking the lives of our fellowman just because we want to be part of Hausa, Ibo or Yorùbá. Our own brothers in Christ are no part of the world where you people think of race! John 4:24

MaxInDHouse:


From the standpoint of Jesus and his true disciples both are politicians (those that depends on the power of might) so whoever has more power decides what should be.
That is the order from time immemorial so it's no big deal, whoever has more power rules as in dominate the other!
Only God's Kingdom will come and settle all that so until then we surrender to the one who has more power never to support either side in taking the lives of our fellowman just because we want to be part of Hausa, Ibo or Yorùbá. Our own brothers in Christ are no part of the world where you people think of race! John 4:24

You see as you've gone tangent to the questions again.
I thought you support the action of Putin who wanted to annex Ukraine!
So I asked
1. Would it be okay if Ukraine also demand that Russia be annexed into their country?
2. If both is okay: how do you resolve the problem?
You never answered my questions


The first question is a validation of your opinion and YES or NO would do.

If your answer is YES, how would you reconcile you supporting both sides.

QED

TenQ:

You see as you've gone tangent to the questions again.
I thought you support the action of Putin who wanted to annex Ukraine!
So I asked
1. Would it be okay if Ukraine also demand that Russia be annexed into their country?
2. If both is okay: how do you resolve the problem?
You never answered my questions

The first question is a validation of your opinion and YES or NO would do.
If your answer is YES, how would you reconcile you supporting both sides.
QED

Both questions has been answered in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ!

If the Roman government wants to dominate or be in control of Judea it's OK from Jesus' standpoint and so if Russia wants to dominate Ukraine or Ukraine wants to dominate Russia it's OK from the standpoint of Christ and all his followers. What we will never do is pick up weapons in support of any side.
So you insisting i support is a misconception because what i'm saying is:
"It's no big deal, why should we support any side when our brothers in Christ are living in both side? We love our neighbours as ourselves {Mark 12:31} and our brothers just as Christ loves us {John 13:34-35} so politicians should go and sought out whatever is between them we will never pick up weapons in support of either side"
Hope you understand now!

MaxInDHouse:


You think by typing long epistles i'll get bored and stop responding to you shey?
Keep deceiving yourself.

I did my best to address the points you put forward, and you call them long epistles. It simply shows your aim is just to reply, rather than meaningfully answer questions.

But it's all good tho.. this will probably be my last reply to you.

If we want to know whether a God exists or not the first step is to ask:
Is there any race on this planet that doesn't believe in God? ~ answer: None!

I've showed you previously that just because majority believe something, doesn't mean it's true.. i gave you the example of the flat earth... But as usual.. you just ignore points and rehash the same old narrative.

Secondly, people who followed Buddhism don't believe in any God.

Is there any culture that teaches that Gods can be seen with ordinary eyes? ~ answer: None!

A lot of them actually. Greek mythology.. Norse mythology .. Egyptian mythology.. but as usual.. you don't use Google.. you just type whatever comes to your mind without actually checking history.

So stop deceiving yourself because you can't see God/Gods the only way to prove that God/Gods exist is the WORKS of these Gods.

Which of course is indistinguishable from the work of humans. The God/Gods could, in their infinite power, rearrange the stars in the sky to spell their name, as well as the instructions on how to worship them.. but no.. instead.. we have humans making claims without evidence.

Do you believe in radio waves?
Can people see it?
Borrow a leaf from these two questions because radio waves exists but only when it's put to work that we can perceive that it exists!

We can measure radio waves.. we can measure the direct physical effect it has on objects. We can measure the energy from it. We can detect it with our machines.

How can we measure the energy from your God? What machine can detect it? How can we measure the direct physical effect it has on an object? I don't mean through a book like the bible .. I mean.. directly.

But as usual.. i expect you to either twist things, dodge the question, or go ahead to repeat your biased narrative.

If simply posting replies for the sake of it without actually thinking about the argument is your goal, then by all means do so.. but i won't be a party to it anymore.

Adios

Dtruthspeaker:


It is you who clearly shows your staunch and unreasonable refusal to accept The Only standing Truth, that has been since the beginning of the world, as you have chosen to.

I hear you

Probabilities are not Truth until they occur and become settled Solid. And when they become Solid, then they are no more probabilities but CERTAINTIES!

Truth is about solid certainty like the ground under your feet and not probability, like you becoming the president of Nigeria.

Agreed

Did you say "it could be true" for nothing? No! You said it after you had seen the Proof! So, no case here.

I'm tired of repeating myself. “could be" entails probability. I didn't say it because you presented "proof". You didn't. So stop tooting your own horn.

You presented a concept.. and i presented alternative concepts. All of which, I've said, satisfy the logical criteria. On that basis, i said it could be true. I also said it could be false. Falls back to probability. But you love to cherrypick.

The parameters have been defined long before you and I were even born, so nothing here either.

Mtchew. I've heard. Thank you

MaxInDHouse:


Both questions has been answered in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ!

If the Roman government wants to dominate or be in control of Judea it's OK from Jesus' standpoint and so if Russia wants to dominate Ukraine or Ukraine wants to dominate Russia it's OK from the standpoint of Christ and all his followers. What we will never do is pick up weapons in support of any side.
So you insisting i support is a misconception because what i'm saying is:
"It's no big deal, why should we support any side when our brothers in Christ are living in both side? We love our neighbours as ourselves {Mark 12:31} and our brothers just as Christ loves us {John 13:34-35} so politicians should go and sought out whatever is between them we will never pick up weapons in support of either side"
Hope you understand now!

Sorry. All you did was to evade answering applied questions with respect to your personal views!

Wilgrea7:

A lot of them actually. Greek mythology.. Norse mythology .. Egyptian mythology.. but as usual.. you don't use Google.. you just type whatever comes to your mind without actually checking history.

Buddhists believe in ability of their dead ancestors to protect them so that's another idea of gods, can any of these mythology show you their god visibly in action? NO!

Wilgrea7:

Which of course is indistinguishable from the work of humans. The God/Gods could, in their infinite power, rearrange the stars in the sky to spell their name, as well as the instructions on how to worship them.. but no.. instead.. we have humans making claims without evidence.

The highlighted! Do you have evidence? NO!
You just want to fabricate something to turn away from the truth!

Wilgrea7:

We can measure radio waves.. we can measure the direct physical effect it has on objects. We can measure the energy from it. We can detect it with our machines.

How can we measure the energy from your God? What machine can detect it? How can we measure the direct physical effect it has on an object? I don't mean through a book like the bible .. I mean.. directly.

If you agree with the underlined but you can't see or show me anything visibly as radio waves then you're deceiving yourself.
As for the energy of my God.
He taught us how to help unbelievers like you perceive His energy but if you're not willing to follow the proceedings it's like telling me that radio waves exists but then i must agree with you on how to measure what i can't see vividly. What evidence do you have that it's not a spirit being that's doing what you're calling radio waves?
So if it's about how to measure the energy of my God then you have to agree with how i choose to present it not the other way around where you are the one to determine how to make the measuring.
My God is the SUPREME BEING and He claimed He's the Creator who made man in His own image. So to measure the energy of my God you must look into what He said regarding His ACTIVE FORCE (Holy Spirit) He promised to gather people from all over the earth and erase politics, racism and military services from their hearts. That can't be a coincidence like your radio waves because you and i know very well that people differ from place to place. Different cultures promotes various odd habits yet this God promised that throughout the earth His Holy Spirit will pick faithful individuals and make a global family of peace loving worshipers. Isaiah 2:2-4
Today we can all see such thing happening despite the fact that people throughout the earth are still learning how to kill their neighbours in the name of military services God's ACTIVE FORCE has erased such a thing from the hearts of millions across the globe and they're having the same line of thought {John 17:20-23} my guy machines could only work when you operate it but as for these people it's like the thought of their God has been WRITTEN in their hearts! Jeremiah 31:33
So if you're promoting radio waves that you can't show me unless i agree to follow your form of measurement then you have no excuse to discard my own form of measuring the effects of the SUPREME BEING!

Wilgrea7:

But as usual.. i expect you to either twist things, dodge the question, or go ahead to repeat your biased narrative.
If simply posting replies for the sake of it without actually thinking about the argument is your goal, then by all means do so.. but i won't be a party to it anymore.
Adios

If you like run away i know that there's nothing you can say against the effect of the SUPREME BEING who made a promise and fulfilled it in the eyes of everyone throughout the earth!

TenQ:

Sorry. All you did was to evade answering applied questions with respect to your personal views!

PERSONAL VIEWS you say?
Well that's the view of the Prince of Peace who has millions of subjects throughout the earth that are willing to make sacrifices no matter what it's going to cost them just to see to it that they're no part of people killing people! Matthew 5:43-48

MaxInDHouse:


Did Jesus supported the Roman government when he said tax is a normal thing in this system of things? Mark 12:13-17
Or did he support the Roman armies when he told his disciples not to raise weapons against the invading Romans? Luke 21:20-21

Ọmọ just say you don't trust (believe) Jesus and let's TEACH you why he's the most wonderful counselor of all time! Isaiah 9:6

Na only question you can ask.

Did Jesus supported the Roman government when he said tax is a normal thing in this system of things? Mark 12:13-17

Here is the Mark below using your NWT

Next they sent to him some of the Pharisees and of the party followers of Herod in order to catch him in his speech. 14 On arriving, these said to him: “Teacher, we know you are truthful and you do not seek anyone’s favor, for you do not look at the outward appearance of people, but you teach the way of God in line with truth. Is it lawful* to pay head tax to Caesar or not? 15 Should we pay, or should we not pay?” Detecting their hypocrisy, he said to them: “Why do you put me to the test? Bring me a de·narʹi·us* to look at.” 16 They brought one, and he said to them: “Whose image and inscription is this?” They said to him: “Caesar’s.” 17 Jesus then said: “Pay back Caesar’s things to Caesar, but God’s things to God.” And they were amazed at him.

Read the highlights very well. The question to Jesus was, is it LAWFUL to pay to CAESAR?

Jesus responded by saying IT IS LAWFUL to pay to CAESAR what belongs to CAESAR?

During the time of Hezekiah King of Judah Sennacherib demanded tributes (an ancient form of taxation) from the people of Judah.
Kings of before Hezekiah has been paying the Assyrians but when Hezekiah became the king he kicked against it and King Sennacherib of Assyria came with 185,000 soldiers to destroy Jerusalem, it's temple and take Hezekiah away as slave back to Assyria.
Hezekiah prayed to JEHOVAH after trying all he could do to show his repentant attitude toward the Assyrian domination because Sennacherib insisted on dealing ruthlessly with Hezekiah.
Well JEHOVAH sent just one angel in a night and killed all the 185,000 soldiers that came to Jerusalem with Sennacherib! 2Kings 19:1-35

So when the Jews living in the same Jerusalem now have Jesus in their midst and they found out that he is the promised Messiah who will rescue them from all oppressors {Isaiah 9:6-7} critics sent their followers to put him to the test so that if he kick against paying of taxes to Caesar they will report him to the Roman government so he could be arrested but if he should say it's OK then those putting faith in him may turn away from following him since he can't save them from oppression.

Jesus found himself in the middle!

That's why he used intelligence to beat them saying since the coin has Caesar's inscription then the Jews should give it back to Caesar.
But the truth is that the coin is what Romans imposed on all the cities under them.

So based on Jesus' response to the Jews he is not in support of either side, whoever has more power should continue ruling until God's Kingdom comes! Matthew 6:10

MaxInDHouse:
During the time of Hezekiah King of Judah Sennacherib demanded tributes (an ancient form of taxation) from the people of Judah.
Kings of before Hezekiah has been paying the Assyrians but when Hezekiah became the king he kicked against it and King Sennacherib of Assyria came with 185,000 soldiers to destroy Jerusalem, it's temple and take Hezekiah away as slave back to Assyria.
Hezekiah prayed to JEHOVAH after trying all he could do to show his repentant attitude toward the Assyrian domination because Sennacherib insisted on dealing ruthlessly with Hezekiah.
Well JEHOVAH sent just one angel in a night and killed all the 185,000 soldiers that came to Jerusalem with Sennacherib! 2Kings 19:1-35

So when the Jews living in the same Jerusalem now have Jesus in their midst and they found out that he is the promised Messiah who will rescue them from all oppressors {Isaiah 9:6-7} critics sent their followers to put him to the test so that if he kick against paying of taxes to Caesar they will report him to the Roman government so he could be arrested but if he should say it's OK then those putting faith in him may turn away from following him since he can't save them from oppression.

Jesus found himself in the middle!

That's why he used intelligence to beat them saying since the coin has Caesar's inscription then the Jews should give it back to Caesar.
But the truth is that the coin is what Romans imposed on all the cities under them.

So based on Jesus' response to the Jews he is not in support of either side, whoever has more power should continue ruling until God's Kingdom comes! Matthew 6:10

The question to Jesus was, is it LAWFUL to pay to CAESAR?

Jesus responded by saying IT IS LAWFUL to pay to CAESAR what belongs to CAESAR.

Jesus didn't sit in the MIDDLE of ANY FENCE in that scripture. The question was about pay to CAESAR stop the merry round of Assyria to Egypt back to Romans

MaxInDHouse:

Buddhists believe in ability of their dead ancestors to protect them so that's another idea of gods, can any of these mythology show you their god visibly in action? NO!

As usual, when faced with an argument, you'll twist the meaning of the word to something else. Since when did dead ancestors equate to God? Do they worship the dead ancestors, or are you just hellbent on denial?

The highlighted! Do you have evidence? NO!
You just want to fabricate something to turn away from the truth!

I never said any god did it. I said if a God wanted to prove itself, it could do something like that.. and we would all believe it. But of course, they can't.

If you agree with the underlined but you can't see or show me anything visibly as radio waves then you're deceiving yourself.

Deceiving myself how? Since when did i say you have to see something to know it exists?

As for the energy of my God.
He taught us how to help unbelievers like you perceive His energy but if you're not willing to follow the proceedings it's like telling me that radio waves exists but then i must agree with you on how to measure what i can't see vividly.

Do you understand what energy means? Do you know what it means to measure energy? Or do you just have an alternative dictionary in your mind you use to redefine things?

In fact.. i won't even bother

What evidence do you have that it's not a spirit being that's doing what you're calling radio waves?

You really just typed this. Wow. Anyways, the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. I never claimed there was a spirit involved. if you want to make that claim, then you have to prove it. If you're not proving it, then don't make claims like that.

So if it's about how to measure the energy of my God then you have to agree with how i choose to present it not the other way around where you are the one to determine how to make the measuring.

When you're done learning what energy is, and what it means to measure it, then come back and mention me.

My God is the SUPREME BEING and He claimed He's the Creator who made man in His own image.

As far as I'm concerned, a human, is the one that made the claim that your God created man in his image. As to whether or not God spoke to the human, that was also a claim.. by the same human

No one physically saw or heard your God saying anything like that. Secondly, the burden of proof still lies on the person making the claim.

So to measure the energy of my God you must look into what He said regarding His ACTIVE FORCE (Holy Spirit)

My man... That's not how energy is measured. Energy is a physical thing, and therefore measured with physical instruments. Its not a mental thing.

He promised to gather people from all over the earth and erase politics, racism and military services from their hearts. That can't be a coincidence like your radio waves because you and i know very well that people differ from place to place. Different cultures promotes various odd habits yet this God promised that throughout the earth His Holy Spirit will pick faithful individuals and make a global family of peace loving worshipers. Isaiah 2:2-4
Today we can all see such thing happening despite the fact that people throughout the earth are still learning how to kill their neighbours in the name of military services God's ACTIVE FORCE has erased such a thing from the hearts of millions across the globe and they're having the same line of thought {John 17:20-23} my guy machines could only work when you operate it but as for these people it's like the thought of their God has been WRITTEN in their hearts! Jeremiah 31:33

You've not described how the energy of your God can be measured. You just went on to restate your JW manifesto. Do better

So if you're promoting radio waves that you can't show me unless i agree to follow your form of measurement then you have no excuse to discard my own form of measuring the effects of the SUPREME BEING!

When you come up with a physical instrument that can measure either the energy, or the direct physical effect of this god, then I'll take you serious.

Wilgrea7:

As usual, when faced with an argument, you'll twist the meaning of the word to something else. Since when did dead ancestors equate to God? Do they worship the dead ancestors, or are you just hellbent on denial?

Were you a Buddhists?
Well we have most of them now in God's organization so they understood what their religion means much more than you who only rely on Google. They WORSHIP their ancestors!

Wilgrea7:

I never said any god did it. I said if a God wanted to prove itself, it could do something like that.. and we would all believe it. But of course, they can't.

So that's your own logic not compulsory what everyone should accept.

Wilgrea7:

Deceiving myself how? Since when did i say you have to see something to know it exists?

God exists and we believe because we're seeing the effects.

Wilgrea7:

Do you understand what energy means? Do you know what it means to measure energy? Or do you just have an alternative dictionary in your mind you use to redefine things?

Well back in school days i was taught to believe that ENERGY means POWER and POWER is the ABILITY to do WORK.
So God's ACTIVE FORCE dragged millions of people throughout the earth under one group and erased politics, racism and military services from their hearts.
Of course it's ENERGY because it's WORKING!

Wilgrea7:

When you come up with a PHYSICAL instrument that can measure either the energy, or the direct physical effect of this god, then I'll take you serious.

When i said you just feel like SEEING something you denied but now you're going back to talk about PHYSICAL INSTRUMENT when the whole world can SEE the products of God's ACTIVE FORCE the ENERGY that brought millions of people from different races throughout the earth under one umbrella to make one big and happy family of peace loving worshipers! Isaiah 2:2-4

Ọmọ you no get excuse! Romans 1:20

My apologies for the late reply. I'm just seeing this now.

TenQ:

The Creator is the first cause of everything and every other consciousness is an EFFECT.
Therefore, our Creator cannot have another creator as it is scientifically and logically impossible to have an infinite regress of cause and effect

The creator is the cause of everything we can observe today. True. That doesn't mean it can't have another creator too.

Infinite regress only happens if you go back infinitely chasing a line of creators. I said earlier on, that it is completely possible, to have 2, 3 or even 10 generations of creators.

Take for example.. a human builds a robot. The human is the cause of the robot. But certainly not the ultimate first cause. The human has parents, and his parents have parents. I made it simpler by shortening the line of causes to low numbers like 2 and 3.

So as far as I've seen, nothing stops a creator, from having another creator. The uncreated creator, which is often seen as the first cause, can exist at the 10th generation.. not necessarily the first one

The physical constants are the rules upon which everything physical is created. A little change in the physical constants results in no universe at all.

You can learn from this video by Alvin Ash (an atheist physicist)
No one knows why the numbers are what they are. But we know they are inter-related and a change of one even by a small amount changes EVERYTHING drastically.

Every programmer uses CONSTANT

I'm a huge fan of Arvin ash.. and I've watched that video before too.

You're right that nobody knows why the constants are the way they are. And of course, I agree that they are fundamental.

But the reason I said I don't know if the constants were created, is because I don't know of, or have imagined a time, when the constants didn't exist.

I'm not trying to use the constants as a replacement for God here. I guess what I was trying to say there was “was there ever a time, when there was truly nothing? (No constants, no laws, nothing at all)"

Your illustration as per the fussion of hydrogen atoms to create helium is very wrong

Hydrogen:
Proton=1, Neutron=0, Electron=1
Helium:
Proton=2, Neutron=2, Electron=2
There is no way two hydrogen atoms could fuse and become helium atom (where does the neutron come from?).

My bad.. i looked it up to confirm.. it was 4 hydrogen atoms that fuse to form Helium.

https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Nuclear_fusion_in_the_Sun

But the point i was trying to make, was that it is possible for multiple agents to be the reason behind a cause, like in the case of helium.

If Minister for Power solved our Electricity problem in Nigeria in one week and we start producing 26GWatt of electricity. Buhari can truely claim he did it. And of course, it is Buhari's achievement.
One of the achievement of OBJ as president was NAFDAC. True or false.

It is a lame argument to insist that the problem solver was not the president but the minister: just as you are trying to claim that maybe there are "sub-creators" who created the universe. Why does it matter?

I wasn't making reference to sub-creators. That was why i gave the example with hydrogen. The hydrogen atoms are not “sub" in any way.

But also, in regards to your sub-creator example.. it's actually something I've been debating here for a while. I think it comes down to creation vs ownership

There are instances where something can be created on behalf of, or in obedience to someone. But there are also other instances that are a bit more difficult to decipher.

I'll give some examples

1) If you create a wristwatch from scratch, and sell it to someone, are you still the creator? Even though the person is the new owner

2) if multiple people engage in a group project to create something, who then will claim ownership to the thing?

These are examples of cases where ownership does not automatically denote, or give one a claim to the title of creator.

Do you think people create/make things without any purpose?
When you plant a garden, do you have a reason?

When you build a boat, do you have a reason?

When you paint a picture, do you have a reason?

When you build a bridge, do you have a reason?

You now expect the Creator of the Universe not to have any reason behind His creation?

I never said so. I never claimed the universe wasn't created with a reason in mind. The point i was trying to make, is that there is a big difference between saying

1) X was created for a reason (the reason here is arbitrary, and not yet defined, but agreed that there is a reason)
2) X was created for this specific reason

If the Creator made the Universe for Himself and not for someone else, don't you think He would relate to it at a personal level?

This is what i was talking about. By this statement, you're not just saying that the creator created the universe for a reason. You're also claiming to know the specific reason, which in this case would be

1. Created for himself
2. For the purpose of relating with it's inhabitants on a personal level

I can accept that we exist for a reason.. but I don't claim to know what that reason is. If someone tells me they do, i usually proceed to ask how they got to find out.

The word infinity or infinite is NOT a specific number. It just means so large as to dwarf the nearest computation.

Therefore, the distance of the sun to the earth may be described as infinite with respect to the diameter of a Coca-Cola bottle cover.

Just look at the power in the first atomic bomb carried by a B12 Bomber to Hiroshima. What if the bomb was the size of the earth?
The sun can contain almost a thousand earth's within its volume: how much energy do you think that is? Now our sun is one of the small stars and there are millions of stars. How much energy do you think that is?

This is why God the Creator is Infinitely powerful !

Understandable

MaxInDHouse:

Were you a Buddhists?
Well we have most of them now in God's organization so they understood what their religion means much more than you who only rely on Google. They WORSHIP their ancestors!

You have most of who is what organization? Keep dreaming. And yes.. i don't mind using google . Unlike some people who state random facts and never bother to crosscheck them

God exists and we believe because we're seeing the effects.

Physical. Physical effects. Not mental ffs. If you want to go by mental effects, then santa Claus is real. Or else, how else can you explain millions of children around the world, who try to act nice, so they get a present from him.

Same goes for the tooth fairy. Or else what else would make millions of children diligently put their loose tooth under their pillow expecting a dollar or penny?

Stick to the physical effects and stop complicating things.

Well back in school days i was taught to believe that ENERGY means POWER and POWER is the ABILITY to do WORK.

Whoever taught you that energy means power needs to lose their teaching license. But yes, you are correct that power is the ability to do work.

So God's ACTIVE FORCE dragged millions of people throughout the earth under one group and erased politics, racism and military services from their hearts.
Of course it's ENERGY because it's WORKING!

If it physically dragged them and put them all in one place, now that would be a more convincing argument. But what you're arguing for is mental effect. Make reference to the Santa claus and tooth fairy example above.

When i said you just feel like SEEING something you denied but now you're going back to talk about PHYSICAL INSTRUMENT

Reference points above

Wilgrea7:

You have most of who is what organization? Keep dreaming. And yes.. i don't mind using google . Unlike some people who state random facts and never bother to crosscheck them Physical. Physical effects. Not mental ffs. If you want to go by mental effects, then santa Claus is real. Or else, how else can you explain millions of children around the world, who try to act nice, so they get a present from him.
Same goes for the tooth fairy. Or else what else would make millions of children diligently put their loose tooth under their pillow expecting a dollar or penny?
Stick to the physical effects and stop complicating things. Whoever taught you that energy means power needs to lose their teaching license. But yes, you are correct that power is the ability to do work. If it physically dragged them and put them all in one place, now that would be a more convincing argument. But what you're arguing for is mental effect. Make reference to the Santa claus and tooth fairy example above.
Reference points above

Well God is a spirit and so His people are worshiping Him in SPIRIT and TRUTH {John 4:24} that's why you can't see anything physical but there's nothing no matter the ENERGY can break the strong ties God's Holy Spirit built among Jehovah's Witnesses even all the ENERGY you can think of can't break what God's ACTIVE FORCE solidified! Zephaniah 3:9

Wilgrea7:

I'm tired of repeating myself. “could be" entails probability. I didn't say it because you presented "proof". You didn't. So stop tooting your own horn.

Your understanding and comprehension problem. Did you start the thread saying "it could be true"? That is what saying "it could be true" for nothing means.

Did you not say it only after I had made a presentation of natural living conditions (Proof)?

As I said, your ability to understand and comprehend is very very faulty.

Dtruthspeaker:


Your understanding and comprehension problem. Did you start the thread saying "it could be true"? That is what saying "it could be true" for nothing means.

Did you not say it only after I had made a presentation of natural living conditions (Proof)?

As I said, your ability to understand and comprehend is very very faulty.

I've told you why I said it. Believe what you want

Wilgrea7:
My apologies for the late reply. I'm just seeing this now.

No problems!

Wilgrea7:

The creator is the cause of everything we can observe today. True. That doesn't mean it can't have another creator too.

Infinite regress only happens if you go back infinitely chasing a line of creators. I said earlier on, that it is completely possible, to have 2, 3 or even 10 generations of creators.

Take for example.. a human builds a robot. The human is the cause of the robot. But certainly not the ultimate first cause. The human has parents, and his parents have parents. I made it simpler by shortening the line of causes to low numbers like 2 and 3.

So as far as I've seen, nothing stops a creator, from having another creator. The uncreated creator, which is often seen as the first cause, can exist at the 10th generation.. not necessarily the first one

The definition of Creator is "The Uncaused First Cause". The ball rest squarely in his hands. Bill Gates is the Creator of Windows Operating system even though, he may not even contribute one line of code into the programming. The programmers are in thousands (from USA, to India, Japan, South-Korea etc) but their names are unimportant as the Creator Bill Gates.

Therefore, it is not reasonable saying that our Creators have other Creators.

Wilgrea7:

I'm a huge fan of Arvin ash.. and I've watched that video before too.

You're right that nobody knows why the constants are the way they are. And of course, I agree that they are fundamental.

But the reason I said I don't know if the constants were created, is because I don't know of, or have imagined a time, when the constants didn't exist.

I'm not trying to use the constants as a replacement for God here. I guess what I was trying to say there was “was there ever a time, when there was truly nothing? (No constants, no laws, nothing at all)"

Beyond the time when the Gravitational Singularity existed, ALL the Laws of Physics including the universal constants breakdown or nonexistent!

Time started only AFTER the big bang (or Inflation if you want to use the current theory). Before the inflation, time was meaningless. Time makes sense only with space (length, breath, height)


God didn't create the universal constants directly: it is our measurements that revealed the symetries in our physical observables. For instance, ALL the Pyramid in Egypt could be found to have a height to base ratio of 1.66666, a mass to height ratio of 23.543kg/m, and a direction of entrance in perfect East-West alignment. All these values are our own observables showing that the early Pharaoh's DESIGNED the pyramids before building.

Same as the physical constants. They did NOT exist till after the big bang or Inflation AND it doesn't mean God used them as we know it. Our observations of the physical constants mean that the Universe is not a random chaotic effect but a planned execution.

Wilgrea7:

My bad.. i looked it up to confirm.. it was 4 hydrogen atoms that fuse to form Helium.

https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Nuclear_fusion_in_the_Sun

But the point i was trying to make, was that it is possible for multiple agents to be the reason behind a cause, like in the case of helium.

Who is the creator of iPhones?
I bet he didn't solder a single component on the printed circuit board of the iPhone.

That is why your theory of "other Creators" is not reasonable with respect to the creation of the universe.

Wilgrea7:

I wasn't making reference to sub-creators. That was why i gave the example with hydrogen. The hydrogen atoms are not “sub" in any way.

But also, in regards to your sub-creator example.. it's actually something I've been debating here for a while. I think it comes down to creation vs ownership

There are instances where something can be created on behalf of, or in obedience to someone. But there are also other instances that are a bit more difficult to decipher.

I'll give some examples

1) If you create a wristwatch from scratch, and sell it to someone, are you still the creator? Even though the person is the new owner

2) if multiple people engage in a group project to create something, who then will claim ownership to the thing?

These are examples of cases where ownership does not automatically denote, or give one a claim to the title of creator.

If God is ALL-POWERFUL, why must He contract out the creations? The bible speaks of God COMMANDING things to be as He has designed it. God's words move things from the realm of invisibility to the realm of visibility or tangibility ACCORDING to His DESIGN!

If you make a wristwatch and sell it to someone, you are still the 100% the maker.

If a group of people execute a work, the owner of the idea and initiator is the CREATOR of the project outcome irrespective of the number of people working on the project.

Wilgrea7:

I never said so. I never claimed the universe wasn't created with a reason in mind. The point i was trying to make, is that there is a big difference between saying

1) X was created for a reason (the reason here is arbitrary, and not yet defined, but agreed that there is a reason)
2) X was created for this specific reason



This is what i was talking about. By this statement, you're not just saying that the creator created the universe for a reason. You're also claiming to know the specific reason, which in this case would be

1. Created for himself
2. For the purpose of relating with it's inhabitants on a personal level

I can accept that we exist for a reason.. but I don't claim to know what that reason is. If someone tells me they do, i usually proceed to ask how they got to find out.



Understandable

The bible made it very clear that God made the Universe (like a garden of flowers) for His own purpose and delight.
Rev 4:11:
"You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for you have created all things, and for your pleasure they are and were created."

A farmer may find it difficult to comprehend why a rich man spent millions to development a garden of Flowers and Herbarium since none of it will translate into money. But, the owner just want a place of relaxation and rest.

Same also with the universe. It's like a garden of Eden for God!

Wilgrea7:


I've told you why I said it. Believe what you want

Which is because I had given you proof. Case closed.

TenQ:

No problems!

The definition of Creator is "The Uncaused First Cause". The ball rest squarely in his hands. Bill Gates is the Creator of Windows Operating system even though, he may not even contribute one line of code into the programming. The programmers are in thousands (from USA, to India, Japan, South-Korea etc) but their names are unimportant as the Creator Bill Gates.

I don't quite agree with this analogy. I'd say bill gates is the creator of Microsoft for example, because he created the initial thing, in its most basic form, that eventually grew to become what it is today.

It started from something.. that something improved and grew over time. Sure, he may not contribute a line of code to it today.. but the initial form of the company, which is the starting point of what we see today, was created by him. And that's what I think qualifies him as the creator

Therefore, it is not reasonable saying that our Creators have other Creators.

I don't see how this excludes the possibility of another generation of creators. I'm not referring to other beings being created and being told to create a universe, as in the case of the programmer

The programmer working at Microsoft was employed there, for the purpose of creating, or working on Microsoft. Sure, that's one analogy. But there's also another possibility.

Bill Gates parents, didn't give birth to him for the purpose of making Microsoft. You can say he was created, by his parents, for whatever reason they chose to have a child.

The child grew up, developed into an adult, and decided, on his own, to make something like Microsoft.. sure, Microsoft is not a “human" or “child" ... But it is still something that was created by someone that was created by someone.

We call Bill Gates' name when we think of Microsoft. We don't call the name of his parents. That's the point I was trying to make.

My concept of a generation of creators is not one where a being is created by another being and instructed to make something. It's one where a created being, chooses to, on it's own volition, make something. Like bill gates chose to make Microsoft, on his own will, rather than that of his parents.

Beyond the time when the Gravitational Singularity existed, ALL the Laws of Physics including the universal constants breakdown or nonexistent!

Time started only AFTER the big bang (or Inflation if you want to use the current theory). Before the inflation, time was meaningless. Time makes sense only with space (length, breath, height)

I think that's another way to look at time. For me, i think of time as something that defines the change of events, or the period between 2 events.

The issue I have with the concept of the singularity you presented.. Actually.. 2 issues.

The first is that, the existence of a gravitational singularity, shows that matter was acting a certain way, even before the big bang. The fact that gravity would even act on matter in a way to cause a singularity, shows that there were still laws of some sort, in place then.

The second, is the idea of the singularity which you presented as being timeless, before the big bang.

How i see it, for the singularity to be timeless, there would have had to be no change in the nature of the singularity at all before inflation. And if there was no change, then there was no period between events and time would be meaningless. That i agree with.

But the assumption that the singularity was all that existed before the big bang, seems like a bit of a stretch to me. Let me explain.

Our observations so far point to a time when matter was so packed together, in what we call a singularity. True. But nothing in the data shows that the singularity is all that was before the big bang.

As far as our knowledge goes, we still don't know what happened before the big bang. We can assume that the singularity existed, timelessly, until inflation. In this case, time would be meaningless before the big bang as you said.

But other assumptions, like a big bounce, or a child universe also seem to be possibilities.

That is, we don't know what led to the singularity, or if anything led to the singularity, or if the singularity always existed. Our knowledge hasn't gone that far.

This is getting really long, so i think I'll break it down into 2 parts

TenQ:


Our observations of the physical constants mean that the Universe is not a random chaotic effect but a planned execution.

I can agree with that

Who is the creator of iPhones?
I bet he didn't solder a single component on the printed circuit board of the iPhone.

That is why your theory of "other Creators" is not reasonable with respect to the creation of the universe.

I think my comment about Bill gates would be relevant here. But just to summarize..

The initial concept/stage of apple, which is more or less the foundation of the version that exists today, was created by Steve jobs and steve Wozniak.

If God is ALL-POWERFUL, why must He contract out the creations?

The example only works if you follow the concept of an all-powerful single creator. And I think it comes back to the example you gave earlier.

Relative to an ant, a Hiroshima bomb will seem infinitely powerful And relativel to us, the energy in the universe, or the energy required to make a universe like this, seems infinitely powerful too.

But the point i was trying to make was that, we have no evidence, at least scientifically, for an all-powerful cause. The concept of being all-powerful is something that's more Philosophical than scientific.

For example, it is possible to get the number 20 by subtracting it from 10 million to the 12th power. It is also possible to get the number 20 by adding up 1's 20 times, or 2's 10 times, or 5's 4 times.

Unless the universe is infinite, the energy in a finite universe would also be finite. And in that case, it could come about by the work of an all-powerful creator, but also from the combined works of multiple, finite, but just suffucently powerful creators. That was why i gave the example of the group project.

The bible speaks of God COMMANDING things to be as He has designed it. God's words move things from the realm of invisibility to the realm of visibility or tangibility ACCORDING to His DESIGN!

Yes... But I'm not talking about the biblical concept here. I'm trying to understand the nature of our cause, or let me say first cause, based on what we know, or what we can observe.

The bible, to someone judging from a non-religious standpoint, simply offers a possible concept of the nature of the first cause. But we are far from understanding what the first cause is, to be able to say if it's right or not.

If you make a wristwatch and sell it to someone, you are still the 100% the maker.

Yes... And that's what makes the whole owner vs creator thing very tricky. Although the other person now owns the watch, it is still your creation.

if a group of people execute a work, the owner of the idea and initiator is the CREATOR of the project outcome irrespective of the number of people working on the project.

Agreed... But it only works in a case where the idea was thought of by one person, and then executed by multiple people.

There are group meetings where different people contribute towards an idea, before the said idea takes its final form ready for implementation. I'll try to give an example.

You, me and person 3 are in a meeting, trying to come up with a new product to help us become rich or something. Let's say a toy.

You say you want us to create a toy that's portable and easy to handle, and also light, so it can be carried from place to place.

I add that the toy must also have non-sharp edges, and should probably be bouncy so the risk of injury is less.

Person 3 adds that the toy should be a certain color or range of colors, since certain colors are associated with fun.

We all contributed something to the idea that eventually gets developed into a toy. In this case, attributing creation to one person alone, wouldn't really work.

Of course I'd like to add that this concept is made useless if you consider an all-knowing God. But just like my example of getting 20 from a large number, or from the addition of small numbers, it still follows here.

All we know, is that we have the number 20. Whether it came about by being subtracted from an infinitely large number, or being added up by smaller numbers, is unknown.

Same as the universe. It's all we have now. But whether it came about through an all-powerful and all knowing being, or by the combied effort of several sufficiently powerful and knowledgeable beings is still a mystery to us

The bible made it very clear that God made the Universe (like a garden of flowers) for His own purpose and delight.
Rev 4:11:
"You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for you have created all things, and for your pleasure they are and were created."

The bible offers a certain concept of a God, who creates things for his pleasure. But like I said earlier, we don't know nearly enough about the first cause to verify or debunk this claim.

Wilgrea7:


I don't quite agree with this analogy. I'd say bill gates is the creator of Microsoft for example, because he created the initial thing, in its most basic form, that eventually grew to become what it is today.

It started from something.. that something improved and grew over time. Sure, he may not contribute a line of code to it today.. but the initial form of the company, which is the starting point of what we see today, was created by him. And that's what I think qualifies him as the creator



I don't see how this excludes the possibility of another generation of creators. I'm not referring to other beings being created and being told to create a universe, as in the case of the programmer

The programmer working at Microsoft was employed there, for the purpose of creating, or working on Microsoft. Sure, that's one analogy. But there's also another possibility.

Bill Gates parents, didn't give birth to him for the purpose of making Microsoft. You can say he was created, by his parents, for whatever reason they chose to have a child.

The child grew up, developed into an adult, and decided, on his own, to make something like Microsoft.. sure, Microsoft is not a “human" or “child" ... But it is still something that was created by someone that was created by someone.

We call Bill Gates' name when we think of Microsoft. We don't call the name of his parents. That's the point I was trying to make.

My concept of a generation of creators is not one where a being is created by another being and instructed to make something. It's one where a created being, chooses to, on it's own volition, make something. Like bill gates chose to make Microsoft, on his own will, rather than that of his parents.




I think that's another way to look at time. For me, i think of time as something that defines the change of events, or the period between 2 events.

The issue I have with the concept of the singularity you presented.. Actually.. 2 issues.

The first is that, the existence of a gravitational singularity, shows that matter was acting a certain way, even before the big bang. The fact that gravity would even act on matter in a way to cause a singularity, shows that there were still laws of some sort, in place then.

The second, is the idea of the singularity which you presented as being timeless, before the big bang.

How i see it, for the singularity to be timeless, there would have had to be no change in the nature of the singularity at all before inflation. And if there was no change, then there was no period between events and time would be meaningless. That i agree with.

But the assumption that the singularity was all that existed before the big bang, seems like a bit of a stretch to me. Let me explain.

Our observations so far point to a time when matter was so packed together, in what we call a singularity. True. But nothing in the data shows that the singularity is all that was before the big bang.

As far as our knowledge goes, we still don't know what happened before the big bang. We can assume that the singularity existed, timelessly, until inflation. In this case, time would be meaningless before the big bang as you said.

But other assumptions, like a big bounce, or a child universe also seem to be possibilities.

That is, we don't know what led to the singularity, or if anything led to the singularity, or if the singularity always existed. Our knowledge hasn't gone that far.

This is getting really long, so i think I'll break it down into 2 parts

Do you have any evidence that there are other Creators of the universe?
How did you come to this your conclusion?


For me, the same person who created the proton, neutron, electrons and the other subatomic particles created the rules for chemical reactions. The same chemicals made both plant and animal tissues. Within the same atoms are embedded the laws of physics. From these same atoms came the Sun and all the planets.

TenQ:

Do you have any evidence that there are other Creators of the universe?
How did you come to this your conclusion?

That's the thing. I don't. And I'm not saying there are multiple Creators either. The purpose of this thread is simply to challenge the traditional concepts of God people hold.

Most theists don't just hold the belief that a God exists. They also believe it has to be a certain way. Like single, personal, all-powerful, eternal, and so on.

I'm simply showing alternative concepts to the nature of the first cause, which can also logically work.

But as far as proof goes, i have as much evidence for mine as they do for theirs. And that's the point. We simply don't know yet.

Wilgrea7:


That's the thing. I don't. And I'm not saying there are multiple Creators either. The purpose of this thread is simply to challenge the traditional concepts of God people hold.

Most theists don't just hold the belief that a God exists. They also believe it has to be a certain way. Like single, personal, all-powerful, eternal, and so on.

I'm simply showing alternative concepts to the nature of the first cause, which can also logically work.

But as far as proof goes, i have as much evidence for mine as they do for theirs. And that's the point. We simply don't know yet.

Okay
But I think I answered all your objections. Check your original post and my first response

Wilgrea7:
1) A SINGULAR GOD

Why exactly does the creator need to be a singular entity? All attributes we can observe, like conscious or intelligent design, can exist perfectly fine if there are 2, 3, 10 or even 100 creators. Why does the concept of a creator need to be singular?

People often say if there were multiple creators, they would run into conflict. Why exactly do multiple higher entities have to fall into conflict with each other? The fact that humans and other life forms on earth do it doesn't mean they (the alleged creators) need to do it.

And even if they do, how do we know it's not something that's bound to happen in the future, and we just don't know yet?


2) AN ETERNAL GOD

Why exactly does our creator, if it exists, need to be eternal. From our current observation, the universe began about 14 billion years ago. What law is stopping our creator from having another creator? What stops our creators from being 30 billion years old, or even 300 billion years old?

A common objection is the infinite regress fallacy. Which is to say that if you say a creator needs a creator, then you go back infinitely needing creators, which is illogical.

Except of course we don't necessarily need 1 generation of a creator. We could have 3, 4, or even 100 generations of creators. Of course there's no way to prove it. So why do we come to the conclusion that any creator we have, happens to be eternal and timeless?


3) A PERSONAL GOD

People often assume that if we were created, whoever created us MUST care for us, or be kind, and loving and whatnot. But what exactly stops the alleged creator/creators of the universe from being evil, sadistic, or simply, not caring.

We could be created just for the sake of spectatorship, where the creator/creators just want to watch the universe and see what happens. We could have creators who derive joy in seeing civilizations from different planets develop and fight each other, like in an arcade game. Or simply creators that just don't care very much. What rule is there that said a creator needs to be good, caring, loving and so on?


4) AN OMNIPOTENT / INFINITELY POWERFUL GOD

Certainly, whatever made our current universe needed to have been powerful enough to create it. But that doesn't necessarily mean it has to be infinitely powerful. You can get a universe from an infinitely powerful cause. You can also get a universe from a cause just powerful enough to create 2 universes, and not more.

On what basis do we grant omnipotence or infinite power?


I have a couple more, but I'll leave it at this for now. Please note if you're proving any point, you need to back it up with some verifiable evidence. Quoting scriptures does not equate to evidence.

Over to you guys

In Genesis it writes let us create
The term for God in Hebrew is Elohim, a plural term. The fact they write the Lord thy God is one, attributes to unity not singularity. Can something singular be everywhere? Especially if your measure of singularity is physical.

The concept of eternity is hard to accept when faced with death daily, but when we understand that even the basic state of matter and energy cannot be destroyed but can be transferred from one form to another, we see a never ending cycle of things, then we understand that the end for one maybe the beginning for another. An eternal God shows that continuity in existence. Meaning as long as existence exists, it's creator exists, not just to create it but to maintain it.

Nothing created is self sufficient, that's why it needs a creator to maintain it and for that it has to have a creator that cares enough. Now personality is something attributed to a living being, and since what we know if that the highest form of existence is alive then that which is higher must have something higher than life and even having a personality is obviously possible. Just has all things have characteristics but not personality. Secondly a desire to communicate, if the creator has no personality how would he or we communicate.

Power is a measure of what is done or can be done, when we can't easily even calculate the amount of power needed to keep a planet alive or the sun shining, how much more a vast sea of stars. Infinite simply is something beyond human capability to calculate. Like something is negligible not because it doesn't exist but because it's too small, like comparing the square root of quarter to a cubic trillion.

The basis of such labelling is to easy the understanding of the simple to grasp the difference in magnitude.

Simply put defining God is hard, maybe when we become like him it gets easier.

Wilgrea7:


I also agree that there's something behind the existence of anything rather than nothing. But figuring out what that thing is, is where things get a lot more complicated.

I'm happy your friend came back to life. But one issue i have with alleged visions of the afterlife like this, is that they're often based on what someone already had an idea of.

If you check most people with near death experiences like this, it's often with someone who has either heard of, or believed in the existence of something like that.

Stories like this exists among all religions, so it really makes you wonder.

True our dreams are based off real life experiences, like sentence based off letters we know. But what better way for the spirit realm to communicate other than using what we can relate with.

Is it possible for the blind to dream of lights or the deaf of sounds.

But again how possible is it for us to use what we have to feed ourselves a specific dream. How much control has a human over their minds and brains not to speak of when they are asleep, do they define what they see.

I bet you not everyone who has heard Christ's crucifixion as had a dream about it, and yet someone who heard it once a long time ago, has multiple dreams about it.

Our minds are something, people dream of spaces years before ever thinking how vast it may be. They named stars, planets probably without knowing so much about them.

Have u ever dreamt of something that hasnt happened and it did happen, question is what made you dream of it?

MITCHELL96:




Precisely, it's when you try to know who the actual creator is and how and when it was created, that's when you get more confused.

It's better we just believe God exists, as time goes, more things will Unfold.

To be honest with you, they're sometimes I even pray that God should kill me and bring me back to life again, sounds funny, just to see what life after death looks like, with this I'll really know if all those things I learnt while growing were true, like heaven and hell and stuffs like that and also to see and experience what the bare eyes can't see.

lol but not everyone who has died saw God. I doubt God lives where death is

Wilgrea7:


Thanks for the recommendation. I must admit that I don't have the time to go through the entire book. But I have been going through the summary of each chapter on Litchart (I'm still at chapter 5). And while I appreciate the book, it doesn't really seem to answer my questions.

Now, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. In the beginning chapters, C.S Lewis argues for the existence of a God, from morality. He says regardless of where we are born, and our society, all humans have an innate knowledge of what good and bad are, and the moral law imbibed in our nature, is just as real as any natural law, like the law of gravity.

The issue with the argument for morality, is that it is so skewed, it is difficult to build a specific case on it. Sure, I agree that humans all throughout history have had concepts of right and wrong, even though they disagree on what things are right and wrong sometimes.

But the fact that people disagree fundamentally on things like that, only shows that if morality is indeed a natural law, it is not a well defined law. To say that right and wrong exists, while simultaneously doing nothing to explicitly define what things should be right, and what should be wrong, is not a really strong point in my opinion.

It seems similar to saying that there are objects that are black, and there are objects that are white, except in this case, people consistently disagree on what things are black, and what things are white. And the objective standard for determining these things is not in any way clear.

Secondly, I still don't see how those arguments address the fact that the creator of the universe could have its own creators, or how we can't have multiple creators, or why the creator/creators, if they exist, have to be personal in the way I defined.

For example, in the case of multiple creators, all they need, to create a moral law, just like any other natural law (which C.S lewis claims) is to simply agree on what it should be, before creation. I'll use the analogy of a car. All it takes for a car to have certain dimensions, is for the engineers working on it, to agree on those dimensions.

I'm not explicitly saying it has to be multiple. It could as well be single, as C.S lewis claims, but his analogy works perfectly well if they are multiple as well.

I'll keep reading through, and I'll mention any other issues I find as i progress in the book. Thanks

People can argue away their conscience when they have personal motive or desires to gain things that contradict that very nature.

People argue the moral rights of homosexuals, while denying the act required for procreation, why? Personal desire.

Now why we can't have multiple creators, is because creation is a mind thing and has to have a goal. The universe functions in unison shows it seems to have a goal which may be obvious to some or too grand for others to see. Everything has to have a source, a Genesis.. just the way we don't start counting from 2 but from one.

Wilgrea7:


I don't think you understood my point. I'm not arguing about why things are created the way they are. I agree that in a controlled scenario, things get created the way the creator/creators intend.

What I'm asking is why the attributes of the creator theists believe in, are that way. Based on our observation of the world, the attributes of the creator can be many different ways, and not just the ones most monotheists believe in. So how exactly did they arrive at the conclusion that a God, if it exists, HAS to be that specific way

because we believe we are created and we look within us seeing what we are given to identify who gave it to us.

Same way kids try to identify their parents but there own attributes or how close they are to them.

It's natural for a man who has an innate driving skill to feel his parent of generation had such skill, were racers either of cars or horses. It's because there's inheritance that why we can trace the source, even of trees and rivers