That's not telling me anything at all. You really shouldn't have been expecting a burning bush in the first place. Your logic is flawed.
Then I guess we see each other the same way with only thing different being my arguments don't contradict themselves like yours.
I have evidence for my beliefs. I can prove my beliefs. You literally just stated you have none.
That the universe was created to produce life and intelligence. Nothing semantic about it. Just good old tangible evidence.
Or evidence that it wasn't. That's what agnostic means; that you can't know because it is unknowable. And yet you made a declarative statement that it was not created intentionally. That's contradictory.
Or yours is.
And your evidence for this unknowable 'no thing' is logic based on assumptions based on faith?
Coming from the person who claims to know 'no thing'? That sounds contradictory to me.
Prove something then. Anything would be a good beginning.
Evidence? Your 'logic' is based on ignorance so calling it 'evidence' is generous.
It's the snake oil salesman, incoherent sales pitch.
You mean my logic that you shouldn't have been expecting a burning bush? No, I'm pretty sure that logic is spot on. It's your logic that no burning bush equals no God that is flawed.
What I said was there was no evidence it was created intentionally, not the same thing. No offense, but if you need me to lower the grade level I write at, I'm happy to do so.
How so? I intentionally avoid using my personal witness as evidence when discussing the answers to the origin questions with people who have never given those questions any serious consideration.
I have many times. It's not a coincidence that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce life and intelligence. It's literally written into the fabric of existence. The universe is way too finely tuned for it to be logical that it's just a coincidence. That coupled with the fact we literally have an example of "no thing" existing before the universe seals the deal.
The physical, biological and moral laws of nature say otherwise. How exactly is my logic based upon ignorance?
So this 'no thing' follows your logical thinking? Here is a quick lesson in logic, something you appear to need, a burning bush is evidence for God, but no burning bush is just that, no burning bush, not evidence for no God. I was not and could not prove a negative.
Unsupported leap of logic: So whatever it is that exists outside of space and time that created this universe from nothing, it can't be matter or energy but must be beyond matter and energy. Consciousness fits that bill. Word games that prove nothing and have no meaning. And how exactly do you know the universe was created from nothing?
So according to you the universe being created to produce life and intelligence could not in any way be intentional? We know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.
Seems like an elaborate 'god of the gaps' argument. We don't know how, when, or why universe popped into existence. Is this the only universe that popped into existence? Is there a control? The whole 'no thing' is a figment of your imagination.
I don't know who or what created the universe: agnosticism. You want to believe in a creator, fine by me but don't expect me to hop on board until I see some evidence, not just wordplay.
