No. Why would it?Wouldn’t creation itself be evidence of a creator?
If creation needs a creator, wouldn’t God itself be evidence of a God above God?
Regards
DL
In fact, that’s infinite regression is your problem. It’s not logical.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No. Why would it?Wouldn’t creation itself be evidence of a creator?
If creation needs a creator, wouldn’t God itself be evidence of a God above God?
Regards
DL
No. Why would it?Wouldn’t creation itself be evidence of a creator?
If creation needs a creator, wouldn’t God itself be evidence of a God above God?
Regards
DL
In fact, that’s infinite regression is your problem. It’s not logical.
I dont believe in sin. Not much on man made gods.True but im not going to shut out the possibility.I dont doubt a creator. It makes just as much sense as the big bang.
The Big Bang has evidence. Your creator notion does not.
The Big Bang has not condemned you for a sin worthy of being condemned for.
What sin earned you condemnation from God?
Regards
DL
Besides that, what if they big bang was the action of a creator?
We should all be agnostic like that to all that we have yet to know or discover.
You should be able to shut out the possibility of your condemnation, unless you are a great sinner. Are you a great sinner or would condemning you to hell and death be an unjust judgement from some God?
Regards
DL
That is as illogical as infinite regression.No. Why would it?Wouldn’t creation itself be evidence of a creator?
If creation needs a creator, wouldn’t God itself be evidence of a God above God?
Regards
DL
In fact, that’s infinite regression is your problem. It’s not logical.
It would because if there is a supernatural, even God could not know how far down the fractal universe he is or how many Gods are above him.
It is logical and I do not think that you, who thinks in a supernaturalstupid way, know how to use logic and reason. That is why what follows was written.
Martin Luther.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”
http://imgur.com/IBroXK9
Regards
DL
That is as illogical as infinite regression.No. Why would it?Wouldn’t creation itself be evidence of a creator?
If creation needs a creator, wouldn’t God itself be evidence of a God above God?
Regards
DL
In fact, that’s infinite regression is your problem. It’s not logical.
It would because if there is a supernatural, even God could not know how far down the fractal universe he is or how many Gods are above him.
It is logical and I do not think that you, who thinks in a supernaturalstupid way, know how to use logic and reason. That is why what follows was written.
Martin Luther.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”
http://imgur.com/IBroXK9
Regards
DL
Because for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do there must be laws and rules for it to follow. Thus the proverbial infinite regression buck stops there.That is as illogical as infinite regression.No. Why would it?Wouldn’t creation itself be evidence of a creator?
If creation needs a creator, wouldn’t God itself be evidence of a God above God?
Regards
DL
In fact, that’s infinite regression is your problem. It’s not logical.
It would because if there is a supernatural, even God could not know how far down the fractal universe he is or how many Gods are above him.
It is logical and I do not think that you, who thinks in a supernaturalstupid way, know how to use logic and reason. That is why what follows was written.
Martin Luther.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”
http://imgur.com/IBroXK9
Regards
DL
What's illogical about infinite regression?
I don't see the connection. Where's the logic error? Why is infinite regression illogical?Because for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do there must be laws and rules for it to follow. Thus the proverbial infinite regression buck stops there.That is as illogical as infinite regression.No. Why would it?If creation needs a creator, wouldn’t God itself be evidence of a God above God?
Regards
DL
In fact, that’s infinite regression is your problem. It’s not logical.
It would because if there is a supernatural, even God could not know how far down the fractal universe he is or how many Gods are above him.
It is logical and I do not think that you, who thinks in a supernaturalstupid way, know how to use logic and reason. That is why what follows was written.
Martin Luther.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”
http://imgur.com/IBroXK9
Regards
DL
What's illogical about infinite regression?
Because dingbat says so. He's not worried about being logical, just watch.I don't see the connection. Where's the logic error? Why is infinite regression illogical?Because for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do there must be laws and rules for it to follow. Thus the proverbial infinite regression buck stops there.That is as illogical as infinite regression.No. Why would it?
In fact, that’s infinite regression is your problem. It’s not logical.
It would because if there is a supernatural, even God could not know how far down the fractal universe he is or how many Gods are above him.
It is logical and I do not think that you, who thinks in a supernaturalstupid way, know how to use logic and reason. That is why what follows was written.
Martin Luther.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”
http://imgur.com/IBroXK9
Regards
DL
What's illogical about infinite regression?
The buck stops at the laws of nature which are eternal.I don't see the connection. Where's the logic error? Why is infinite regression illogical?Because for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do there must be laws and rules for it to follow. Thus the proverbial infinite regression buck stops there.That is as illogical as infinite regression.No. Why would it?
In fact, that’s infinite regression is your problem. It’s not logical.
It would because if there is a supernatural, even God could not know how far down the fractal universe he is or how many Gods are above him.
It is logical and I do not think that you, who thinks in a supernaturalstupid way, know how to use logic and reason. That is why what follows was written.
Martin Luther.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”
http://imgur.com/IBroXK9
Regards
DL
What's illogical about infinite regression?
So says dingbat. But no proof.The buck stops at the laws of nature which are eternal.I don't see the connection. Where's the logic error? Why is infinite regression illogical?Because for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do there must be laws and rules for it to follow. Thus the proverbial infinite regression buck stops there.That is as illogical as infinite regression.It would because if there is a supernatural, even God could not know how far down the fractal universe he is or how many Gods are above him.
It is logical and I do not think that you, who thinks in a supernaturalstupid way, know how to use logic and reason. That is why what follows was written.
Martin Luther.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”
http://imgur.com/IBroXK9
Regards
DL
What's illogical about infinite regression?
I’ve provided lots of proof. Red shift and cosmic background radiation both show the universe had a beginning. You are the one dismissing science. You are the one with no proof.So says dingbat. But no proof.The buck stops at the laws of nature which are eternal.I don't see the connection. Where's the logic error? Why is infinite regression illogical?Because for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do there must be laws and rules for it to follow. Thus the proverbial infinite regression buck stops there.That is as illogical as infinite regression.
What's illogical about infinite regression?
That’s not even what you claimed.I’ve provided lots of proof. Red shift and cosmic background radiation both show the universe had a beginning. You are the one dismissing science. You are the one with no proof.So says dingbat. But no proof.The buck stops at the laws of nature which are eternal.I don't see the connection. Where's the logic error? Why is infinite regression illogical?Because for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do there must be laws and rules for it to follow. Thus the proverbial infinite regression buck stops there.What's illogical about infinite regression?
Sure it is. It starts with the universe had a beginning. Something you deny because you claim we don’t know. Weak.That’s not even what you claimed.I’ve provided lots of proof. Red shift and cosmic background radiation both show the universe had a beginning. You are the one dismissing science. You are the one with no proof.So says dingbat. But no proof.The buck stops at the laws of nature which are eternal.I don't see the connection. Where's the logic error? Why is infinite regression illogical?Because for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do there must be laws and rules for it to follow. Thus the proverbial infinite regression buck stops there.
We don’t yet know if the BB was the actual beginning because we can’t see that far back yet. It’s a theory, nothing more.Sure it is. It starts with the universe had a beginning. Something you deny because you claim we don’t know. Weak.That’s not even what you claimed.I’ve provided lots of proof. Red shift and cosmic background radiation both show the universe had a beginning. You are the one dismissing science. You are the one with no proof.So says dingbat. But no proof.The buck stops at the laws of nature which are eternal.I don't see the connection. Where's the logic error? Why is infinite regression illogical?
There you go again shitting on science when it doesn’t suit your purpose.We don’t yet know if the BB was the actual beginning because we can’t see that far back yet. It’s a theory, nothing more.Sure it is. It starts with the universe had a beginning. Something you deny because you claim we don’t know. Weak.That’s not even what you claimed.I’ve provided lots of proof. Red shift and cosmic background radiation both show the universe had a beginning. You are the one dismissing science. You are the one with no proof.So says dingbat. But no proof.The buck stops at the laws of nature which are eternal.
You have no clue, you’re guessing.There you go again shitting on science when it doesn’t suit your purpose.We don’t yet know if the BB was the actual beginning because we can’t see that far back yet. It’s a theory, nothing more.Sure it is. It starts with the universe had a beginning. Something you deny because you claim we don’t know. Weak.That’s not even what you claimed.I’ve provided lots of proof. Red shift and cosmic background radiation both show the universe had a beginning. You are the one dismissing science. You are the one with no proof.So says dingbat. But no proof.
We do know because the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us an infinite acting universe would eventually reach thermal equilibrium which we don’t see. So it is a 100% certainty that space and time were created 14 billion years ago.
Red shift, cosmic background radiation, FLoT, SLoT, general relativity, quantum mechanics, inflation theory all say that the universe began 14 billion years ago.You have no clue, you’re guessing.There you go again shitting on science when it doesn’t suit your purpose.We don’t yet know if the BB was the actual beginning because we can’t see that far back yet. It’s a theory, nothing more.Sure it is. It starts with the universe had a beginning. Something you deny because you claim we don’t know. Weak.That’s not even what you claimed.I’ve provided lots of proof. Red shift and cosmic background radiation both show the universe had a beginning. You are the one dismissing science. You are the one with no proof.
We do know because the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us an infinite acting universe would eventually reach thermal equilibrium which we don’t see. So it is a 100% certainty that space and time were created 14 billion years ago.
We can’t see that far back yet, you’re assuming.Red shift, cosmic background radiation, FLoT, SLoT, general relativity, quantum mechanics, inflation theory all say that the universe began 14 billion years ago.You have no clue, you’re guessing.There you go again shitting on science when it doesn’t suit your purpose.We don’t yet know if the BB was the actual beginning because we can’t see that far back yet. It’s a theory, nothing more.Sure it is. It starts with the universe had a beginning. Something you deny because you claim we don’t know. Weak.That’s not even what you claimed.
We do know because the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us an infinite acting universe would eventually reach thermal equilibrium which we don’t see. So it is a 100% certainty that space and time were created 14 billion years ago.
Even CERN says so on their website.
What do you have?
So you are admitting you don’t know anything.We can’t see that far back yet, you’re assuming.Red shift, cosmic background radiation, FLoT, SLoT, general relativity, quantum mechanics, inflation theory all say that the universe began 14 billion years ago.You have no clue, you’re guessing.There you go again shitting on science when it doesn’t suit your purpose.We don’t yet know if the BB was the actual beginning because we can’t see that far back yet. It’s a theory, nothing more.Sure it is. It starts with the universe had a beginning. Something you deny because you claim we don’t know. Weak.
We do know because the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us an infinite acting universe would eventually reach thermal equilibrium which we don’t see. So it is a 100% certainty that space and time were created 14 billion years ago.
Even CERN says so on their website.
What do you have?
How do you explain red shift and cosmic background radiation?We can’t see that far back yet, you’re assuming.Red shift, cosmic background radiation, FLoT, SLoT, general relativity, quantum mechanics, inflation theory all say that the universe began 14 billion years ago.You have no clue, you’re guessing.There you go again shitting on science when it doesn’t suit your purpose.We don’t yet know if the BB was the actual beginning because we can’t see that far back yet. It’s a theory, nothing more.Sure it is. It starts with the universe had a beginning. Something you deny because you claim we don’t know. Weak.
We do know because the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us an infinite acting universe would eventually reach thermal equilibrium which we don’t see. So it is a 100% certainty that space and time were created 14 billion years ago.
Even CERN says so on their website.
What do you have?