A logical, simple truth with profound meaning

[ding]

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?

In fact, that’s infinite regression is your problem. It’s not logical.

 

[GreatestIam]

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?

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

 

[GreatestIam]

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

True but im not going to shut out the possibility.
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

I dont believe in sin. Not much on man made gods.

I understand your position and would agree if I did not see all thinking systems as ideologies and just replace sin with evil or crime.

That helps in not having to waste time on the definition od synonymous terms.

Regards
DL

 

[ding]

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?

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.

 

[dblack]

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?

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.

What's illogical about infinite regression?

 

[ding]

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?

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.

What's illogical about infinite regression?

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.

 

[dblack]

If creation needs a creator, wouldn’t God itself be evidence of a God above God?

Regards
DL

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

That is as illogical as infinite regression.

What's illogical about infinite regression?

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.

I don't see the connection. Where's the logic error? Why is infinite regression illogical?

 

[Taz]

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

That is as illogical as infinite regression.

What's illogical about infinite regression?

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.

I don't see the connection. Where's the logic error? Why is infinite regression illogical?

Because dingbat says so. He's not worried about being logical, just watch.

 

[ding]

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

That is as illogical as infinite regression.

What's illogical about infinite regression?

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.

I don't see the connection. Where's the logic error? Why is infinite regression illogical?

The buck stops at the laws of nature which are eternal.

 

[Taz]

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.

What's illogical about infinite regression?

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.

I don't see the connection. Where's the logic error? Why is infinite regression illogical?

The buck stops at the laws of nature which are eternal.

So says dingbat. But no proof.

 

[ding]

That is as illogical as infinite regression.

What's illogical about infinite regression?

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.

I don't see the connection. Where's the logic error? Why is infinite regression illogical?

The buck stops at the laws of nature which are eternal.

So says dingbat. But no proof.

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.

 

[Taz]

What's illogical about infinite regression?

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.

I don't see the connection. Where's the logic error? Why is infinite regression illogical?

The buck stops at the laws of nature which are eternal.

So says dingbat. But no proof.

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.

That’s not even what you claimed.

 

[ding]

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.

I don't see the connection. Where's the logic error? Why is infinite regression illogical?

The buck stops at the laws of nature which are eternal.

So says dingbat. But no proof.

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.

That’s not even what you claimed.

Sure it is. It starts with the universe had a beginning. Something you deny because you claim we don’t know. Weak.

 

[Taz]

I don't see the connection. Where's the logic error? Why is infinite regression illogical?

The buck stops at the laws of nature which are eternal.

So says dingbat. But no proof.

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.

That’s not even what you claimed.

Sure it is. It starts with the universe had a beginning. Something you deny because you claim we don’t know. Weak.

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.

 

[ding]

The buck stops at the laws of nature which are eternal.

So says dingbat. But no proof.

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.

That’s not even what you claimed.

Sure it is. It starts with the universe had a beginning. Something you deny because you claim we don’t know. Weak.

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.

There you go again shitting on science when it doesn’t suit your purpose.

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.

 

[Taz]

So says dingbat. But no proof.

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.

That’s not even what you claimed.

Sure it is. It starts with the universe had a beginning. Something you deny because you claim we don’t know. Weak.

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.

There you go again shitting on science when it doesn’t suit your purpose.

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.

You have no clue, you’re guessing.

 

[ding]

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.

That’s not even what you claimed.

Sure it is. It starts with the universe had a beginning. Something you deny because you claim we don’t know. Weak.

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.

There you go again shitting on science when it doesn’t suit your purpose.

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.

You have no clue, you’re guessing.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, FLoT, SLoT, general relativity, quantum mechanics, inflation theory all say that the universe began 14 billion years ago.

Even CERN says so on their website.

What do you have?

 

[Taz]

That’s not even what you claimed.

Sure it is. It starts with the universe had a beginning. Something you deny because you claim we don’t know. Weak.

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.

There you go again shitting on science when it doesn’t suit your purpose.

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.

You have no clue, you’re guessing.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, FLoT, SLoT, general relativity, quantum mechanics, inflation theory all say that the universe began 14 billion years ago.

Even CERN says so on their website.

What do you have?

We can’t see that far back yet, you’re assuming.

 

[ding]

Sure it is. It starts with the universe had a beginning. Something you deny because you claim we don’t know. Weak.

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.

There you go again shitting on science when it doesn’t suit your purpose.

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.

You have no clue, you’re guessing.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, FLoT, SLoT, general relativity, quantum mechanics, inflation theory all say that the universe began 14 billion years ago.

Even CERN says so on their website.

What do you have?

We can’t see that far back yet, you’re assuming.

So you are admitting you don’t know anything.

 

[ding]

Sure it is. It starts with the universe had a beginning. Something you deny because you claim we don’t know. Weak.

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.

There you go again shitting on science when it doesn’t suit your purpose.

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.

You have no clue, you’re guessing.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, FLoT, SLoT, general relativity, quantum mechanics, inflation theory all say that the universe began 14 billion years ago.

Even CERN says so on their website.

What do you have?

We can’t see that far back yet, you’re assuming.

How do you explain red shift and cosmic background radiation?