God does exist. Itelligent design in the Universe is prof of God.

[ding]

You have some need to feel like you win don't you? That's kind of sad that you think you have to claim victory on an anonymous message board.

Reality is defined as the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. So seeing reality instead of perception of reality is indeed winning as there can only be one correct view which is known as reality.

And just because i think some behaviors are unacceptable doesn't mean everyone does.

Doesn't matter how many people believe it. It only matters what logic determines to be the objective truth. There is only one objective truth. Objective truth is the final state of fact. Once discovered it will be known that objective truth was always that way and will always be that way even if others don't believe it.

I'm not arrogant enough to think my thoughts and opinions constitute some absolute law as you seem to.

That's incorrect. It's not me that determines anything. It is logic which determines objective truth which is also known as reality. Standards exist for logical reasons so people can choose any standard they like but only the correct standard won't have negative consequences. I am not arguing that I know better. I am arguing that logic knows better.

So no i don't condone the abuse of children or slavery. But I am not the absolute authority on these matters and neither are you

Correct. Logic is. Logic determines the standard. Anything less will lead to predictable surprises because standards exist for logical reasons.

Your idea of universal code of morality is idealistic and divorced from reality.

If something is universal then it applies to all and like I said we have decided that there are times when a behavior is both acceptable and unacceptable relative to the situation.

That one fact alone disproves the idea of some universal code of morals

There is nothing idealistic in saying that morals are standards which exist for logical reasons. I have already explained to you why everyone doesn't follow the moral law. Do you need for me to tell you again?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

By definition it does.

False. It simply says a god made us. It does not speak to any purpose. You have to imagine the purpose yourself, just as you have imagined your gods.

 

[onefour1]

Darwinism is on its way out.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Darwinism is on its way out.

Says "The Hoover Institution"

Because the Great Depression was such a good thing!

 

[Blues Man]

You have some need to feel like you win don't you? That's kind of sad that you think you have to claim victory on an anonymous message board.

Reality is defined as the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. So seeing reality instead of perception of reality is indeed winning as there can only be one correct view which is known as reality.

And just because i think some behaviors are unacceptable doesn't mean everyone does.

Doesn't matter how many people believe it. It only matters what logic determines to be the objective truth. There is only one objective truth. Objective truth is the final state of fact. Once discovered it will be known that objective truth was always that way and will always be that way even if others don't believe it.

I'm not arrogant enough to think my thoughts and opinions constitute some absolute law as you seem to.

That's incorrect. It's not me that determines anything. It is logic which determines objective truth which is also known as reality. Standards exist for logical reasons so people can choose any standard they like but only the correct standard won't have negative consequences. I am not arguing that I know better. I am arguing that logic knows better.

So no i don't condone the abuse of children or slavery. But I am not the absolute authority on these matters and neither are you

Correct. Logic is. Logic determines the standard. Anything less will lead to predictable surprises because standards exist for logical reasons.

Since there are still people in bondage and children still are abused it seems that not all humans have the same access to your universal code of morals therefore it isn't universal

Again... that's because of subjectivity. Which I have already explained to you before.

Exactly morals are subjective

 

[Blues Man]

You have some need to feel like you win don't you? That's kind of sad that you think you have to claim victory on an anonymous message board.

Reality is defined as the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. So seeing reality instead of perception of reality is indeed winning as there can only be one correct view which is known as reality.

And just because i think some behaviors are unacceptable doesn't mean everyone does.

Doesn't matter how many people believe it. It only matters what logic determines to be the objective truth. There is only one objective truth. Objective truth is the final state of fact. Once discovered it will be known that objective truth was always that way and will always be that way even if others don't believe it.

I'm not arrogant enough to think my thoughts and opinions constitute some absolute law as you seem to.

That's incorrect. It's not me that determines anything. It is logic which determines objective truth which is also known as reality. Standards exist for logical reasons so people can choose any standard they like but only the correct standard won't have negative consequences. I am not arguing that I know better. I am arguing that logic knows better.

So no i don't condone the abuse of children or slavery. But I am not the absolute authority on these matters and neither are you

Correct. Logic is. Logic determines the standard. Anything less will lead to predictable surprises because standards exist for logical reasons.

Your idea of universal code of morality is idealistic and divorced from reality.

If something is universal then it applies to all and like I said we have decided that there are times when a behavior is both acceptable and unacceptable relative to the situation.

That one fact alone disproves the idea of some universal code of morals

There is nothing idealistic in saying that morals are standards which exist for logical reasons. I have already explained to you why everyone doesn't follow the moral law. Do you need for me to tell you again?

Morals are just another man made concept.

There are no universal standards.

Morals are determined by society. The first laws regrading murder were not made because the rulers of ancient societies though that killing was wrong but rather they knew that murder, theft etc destabilized society and threatened the survival of that society.

These ideas only became prevalent after we started living in large stationary societies. And we all have been conditioned by the society we were raised in to accept the societal definitions of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors.

As societies change so do the morals of that society.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Believers really are sincere in their superstitious beliefs.

Atheists like you are really sincere in your baseless, cynical beliefs that nothing made everything and it just turned out peachy. Magic.
A Matter of Gravity by Professor John Lennox

This fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy and is comprehensively wrong.

Those free from religion harbor no ‘beliefs’; they acknowledge the fact that religion and ‘god’ are creations of man – acknowledging this fact is neither ‘baseless’ nor ‘cynical.’

And that the origins of the universe and life on earth might currently be unknown, doesn’t mean ‘god’ is the ‘answer.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Christianity is the product of two millennia of creative intellectual thought and innovation

This fails as an appeal to authority fallacy.

That theists might be clever with their sophistry doesn’t make religious dogma any more valid.

Indeed, religious dogma is further confirmation of the fact that religion and ‘god’ are creations of man, that there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists, and that there is neither ‘intelligent design’ nor ‘proof’ of ‘god.’

 

[ding]

By definition it does.

False. It simply says a god made us. It does not speak to any purpose. You have to imagine the purpose yourself, just as you have imagined your gods.

I explained how by definition it does in the part you parsed out.

By definition it does. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional.

 

[ding]

You have some need to feel like you win don't you? That's kind of sad that you think you have to claim victory on an anonymous message board.

Reality is defined as the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. So seeing reality instead of perception of reality is indeed winning as there can only be one correct view which is known as reality.

And just because i think some behaviors are unacceptable doesn't mean everyone does.

Doesn't matter how many people believe it. It only matters what logic determines to be the objective truth. There is only one objective truth. Objective truth is the final state of fact. Once discovered it will be known that objective truth was always that way and will always be that way even if others don't believe it.

I'm not arrogant enough to think my thoughts and opinions constitute some absolute law as you seem to.

That's incorrect. It's not me that determines anything. It is logic which determines objective truth which is also known as reality. Standards exist for logical reasons so people can choose any standard they like but only the correct standard won't have negative consequences. I am not arguing that I know better. I am arguing that logic knows better.

So no i don't condone the abuse of children or slavery. But I am not the absolute authority on these matters and neither are you

Correct. Logic is. Logic determines the standard. Anything less will lead to predictable surprises because standards exist for logical reasons.

Since there are still people in bondage and children still are abused it seems that not all humans have the same access to your universal code of morals therefore it isn't universal

Again... that's because of subjectivity. Which I have already explained to you before.

Exactly morals are subjective

No. Humans are subjective. Morals are standards of behavior.

Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Standards don't have personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Humans do.

 

[ding]

You have some need to feel like you win don't you? That's kind of sad that you think you have to claim victory on an anonymous message board.

Reality is defined as the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. So seeing reality instead of perception of reality is indeed winning as there can only be one correct view which is known as reality.

And just because i think some behaviors are unacceptable doesn't mean everyone does.

Doesn't matter how many people believe it. It only matters what logic determines to be the objective truth. There is only one objective truth. Objective truth is the final state of fact. Once discovered it will be known that objective truth was always that way and will always be that way even if others don't believe it.

I'm not arrogant enough to think my thoughts and opinions constitute some absolute law as you seem to.

That's incorrect. It's not me that determines anything. It is logic which determines objective truth which is also known as reality. Standards exist for logical reasons so people can choose any standard they like but only the correct standard won't have negative consequences. I am not arguing that I know better. I am arguing that logic knows better.

So no i don't condone the abuse of children or slavery. But I am not the absolute authority on these matters and neither are you

Correct. Logic is. Logic determines the standard. Anything less will lead to predictable surprises because standards exist for logical reasons.

Your idea of universal code of morality is idealistic and divorced from reality.

If something is universal then it applies to all and like I said we have decided that there are times when a behavior is both acceptable and unacceptable relative to the situation.

That one fact alone disproves the idea of some universal code of morals

There is nothing idealistic in saying that morals are standards which exist for logical reasons. I have already explained to you why everyone doesn't follow the moral law. Do you need for me to tell you again?

Morals are just another man made concept.

There are no universal standards.

Morals are determined by society. The first laws regrading murder were not made because the rulers of ancient societies though that killing was wrong but rather they knew that murder, theft etc destabilized society and threatened the survival of that society.

These ideas only became prevalent after we started living in large stationary societies. And we all have been conditioned by the society we were raised in to accept the societal definitions of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors.

As societies change so do the morals of that society.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

 

[ChemEngineer]

If you're actually a Chemical Engineer then your comments are of interest to me. You are of above average intelligence and you are a believer.

I suspect that my comments will ONLY be of interest to you until you find them in conflict with your tenets and beliefs.

Atheists are obsessed with their own "intellectualism," real or imagined. The Unabomber is a genius. Serial rapist Bill Cosby has a PhD. Recently deceased Bernie Madoff was brilliant, President of the NASDAQ. He just created the biggest Ponzi Scheme in history. That's all.

Atheists equate intellect with wisdom. They're very different.

{QUOTE]My explanation on how that can be is that childhood indoctrination into Christianity is so powerful a factor that it can't be escaped by many.
[/QUOTE]

YOU call the sum total of human knowledge and wisdom, based on history and science, "indoctrination." The siren song of "We're smarter than you, more rational than you, and more scientific (wink, nudge) than you" is the indoctrination which has possessed and brainwashed you.

That's not intended as an insult, even though it must be insulting to you. It is out of necessity for carrying on a conversation on the topic.

I won't listen to an hour long lecture by the professor because I know it will all end in erroneous conclusions, but I am interested in your thumbnail analysis of his thesis.

His thesis has long been presented to you and other atheists, but unfortunately you reject each and every one of them. The Anthropic Principle? You cite "The Multiverse" - utter poppycock and nonsense. Elegance, beauty, insuperable statistics? You call "The Argument From Incredulity" and giggle your sophistication and brilliance. History and logic? You call these "Superstition" and "A Magic Man in the Sky."

You claim to want to learn, but unfortunately you refuse to devote even sixty minutes to your own eternity. Get your mind and your life right now while you can. When it's too late, every soul in heaven will weep at your misfortune. Every single one. But you made your choice, and you will have lots of miserable company, much as the mentally ill, drug addicts and alcoholics in homeless encampments around Blue States do today.

Let's Examine Claims of Atheists

AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com

 

[ding]

I won't listen to an hour long lecture by the professor because I know it will all end in erroneous conclusions, but I am interested in your thumbnail analysis of his thesis.

Hawking contends that because the law of gravity exists that the universe can create itself from nothing. The professor points out that the law of gravity is not nothing. So some thing (which is in reality no thing) existed before space and time were created.

So... if we assume that everything that occurred since the creation of space and time (including the creation of space and time) is just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from nothing by no thing. God is no thing. No thing created space and time.

 

[Donald H]

If you're actually a Chemical Engineer then your comments are of interest to me. You are of above average intelligence and you are a believer.

I suspect that my comments will ONLY be of interest to you until you find them in conflict with your tenets and beliefs.

Atheists are obsessed with their own "intellectualism," real or imagined. The Unabomber is a genius. Serial rapist Bill Cosby has a PhD. Recently deceased Bernie Madoff was brilliant, President of the NASDAQ. He just created the biggest Ponzi Scheme in history. That's all.

Atheists equate intellect with wisdom. They're very different.

{QUOTE]My explanation on how that can be is that childhood indoctrination into Christianity is so powerful a factor that it can't be escaped by many.

YOU call the sum total of human knowledge and wisdom, based on history and science, "indoctrination." The siren song of "We're smarter than you, more rational than you, and more scientific (wink, nudge) than you" is the indoctrination which has possessed and brainwashed you.

That's not intended as an insult, even though it must be insulting to you. It is out of necessity for carrying on a conversation on the topic.

I won't listen to an hour long lecture by the professor because I know it will all end in erroneous conclusions, but I am interested in your thumbnail analysis of his thesis.

His thesis has long been presented to you and other atheists, but unfortunately you reject each and every one of them. The Anthropic Principle? You cite "The Multiverse" - utter poppycock and nonsense. Elegance, beauty, insuperable statistics? You call "The Argument From Incredulity" and giggle your sophistication and brilliance. History and logic? You call these "Superstition" and "A Magic Man in the Sky."

You claim to want to learn, but unfortunately you refuse to devote even sixty minutes to your own eternity. Get your mind and your life right now while you can. When it's too late, every soul in heaven will weep at your misfortune. Every single one. But you made your choice, and you will have lots of miserable company, much as the mentally ill, drug addicts and alcoholics in homeless encampments around Blue States do today.

Let's Examine Claims of Atheists

AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com

[/QUOTE]
I can summarize my opinion on religion pretty quickly for you. The Christian bible(s) are full of impossibilities and nonsense if interpreted literally. We can continue to expand on that fact if 'literal' is your opinion.

Or we can accept that it's not to be believed as literal and then there's no need to expand on the issue any further, other than to say that I can accept any and all of it as being nothing but hundreds or thousands of manmade interpretations of it's meaning that isn't meant to be taken seriously.

You choose and then I can expand on how we should handle the question.

Where did you get the notion that I support a 'multiverse', or support anything else for that matter?
I'm not suggesting that you support a 6000 to 10,000 year old earth, or Noah'as ark. That would be a premature and unfair assumption.

 

[Donald H]

Hawking contends that because the law of gravity exists that the universe can create itself from nothing. The professor points out that the law of gravity is not nothing. So some thing (which is in reality no thing) existed before space and time were created.

So... if we assume that everything that occurred since the creation of space and time (including the creation of space and time) is just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from nothing by no thing. God is no thing. No thing created space and time.

Your explanation on the theory of everything is amusing.
But do be aware that it can only serve to convince yourself.

Same question to you, is the Christian bible supposed to be understood as the literal word of the god?

I think it possibly could have been 100 years ago for most Americans but no later than that.

Literal doesn't include interpretation such as 'the god makes everything possible'.
The word 'literal' has meaning that I'm not going to allow Christians to misinterpret. That much at least will not be a question in any debate in which I take part.

I'm going to be very liberal on all else.

 

[Donald H]

Intelligent design became an embarrassment to those who proposed the idea. They made the fatal mistake of trying to use completely wrong pseudo-science against real science.

Their best argument on the bacterial flagellum was completely destroyed when science proved conclusively that it was reducable.

Then instead of abandoning their relgious nonsense they went on to make the same stupid claim on the human eye!

Christianity didn't run from the ID nonsense fast enough. Some are so ignorant that they persiste on having their legs chopped off at the knees on the dead and buried issue!

 

[ding]

Hawking contends that because the law of gravity exists that the universe can create itself from nothing. The professor points out that the law of gravity is not nothing. So some thing (which is in reality no thing) existed before space and time were created.

So... if we assume that everything that occurred since the creation of space and time (including the creation of space and time) is just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from nothing by no thing. God is no thing. No thing created space and time.

Your explanation on the theory of everything is amusing.
But do be aware that it can only serve to convince yourself.

Same question to you, is the Christian bible supposed to be understood as the literal word of the god?

I think it possibly could have been 100 years ago for most Americans but no later than that.

Literal doesn't include interpretation such as 'the god makes everything possible'.
The word 'literal' has meaning that I'm not going to allow Christians to misinterpret. That much at least will not be a question in any debate in which I take part.

I'm going to be very liberal on all else.

I couldn't be happier to amuse you. You sound very secure in your beliefs.

The Bible is a collection of books written by many different men over a very long period of time. The men who wrote it came from all different walks of life and had different backgrounds. It was written with several different literary styles. So within each book and sometimes within each chapter of each book, to gain the proper discernment one would need to identify which literary style was being employed. And as always a proper context of the times is needed for proper discernment.

So, was it meant to be read literal? Not the passages that were written allegorically or poetically or prophetically. But the passages that were historical accounts without allegorical narratives or the legal passages, sure. Do I think it is infallible? No, it was written by fallible men. But if one is reading for intent and not for bias there's a lot of truth and wisdom contained in the books. To me the problem is not the fallible men who wrote the Bible or what they wrote. To me the problem is the fallible men who read the Bible and how they read it. If you are one of those guys who reads it to confirm your bias, we probably won't get along very well as I don't like correcting the errors of people - who don't practice my faith - who think they know my faith better than I know my faith. But if you aren't one of those guys, we'll get along great.

 

[ding]

Intelligent design became an embarrassment to those who proposed the idea. They made the fatal mistake of trying to use completely wrong pseudo-science against real science.

Their best argument on the bacterial flagellum was completely destroyed when science proved conclusively that it was reducable.

Then instead of abandoning their relgious nonsense they went on to make the same stupid claim on the human eye!

Christianity didn't run from the ID nonsense fast enough. Some are so ignorant that they persiste on having their legs chopped off at the knees!

Good thing I'm not arguing that then.

Would you agree that the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit?

AND that if the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world? That everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal?

AND that there is no middle ground? That there is no other option? That either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't? That all other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive?

Would you agree with all of that?

 

[Donald H]

Hawking contends that because the law of gravity exists that the universe can create itself from nothing. The professor points out that the law of gravity is not nothing. So some thing (which is in reality no thing) existed before space and time were created.

So... if we assume that everything that occurred since the creation of space and time (including the creation of space and time) is just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from nothing by no thing. God is no thing. No thing created space and time.

Your explanation on the theory of everything is amusing.
But do be aware that it can only serve to convince yourself.

Same question to you, is the Christian bible supposed to be understood as the literal word of the god?

I think it possibly could have been 100 years ago for most Americans but no later than that.

Literal doesn't include interpretation such as 'the god makes everything possible'.
The word 'literal' has meaning that I'm not going to allow Christians to misinterpret. That much at least will not be a question in any debate in which I take part.

I'm going to be very liberal on all else.

I couldn't be happier to amuse you. You sound very secure in your beliefs.

The Bible is a collection of books written by many different men over a very long period of time. The men who wrote it came from all different walks of life and had different backgrounds. It was written with several different literary styles. So withing each book and sometimes within each chapter of each book, to gain the proper discernment one would need to identify which literary style was being employed. And as always a proper context of the times is needed for proper discernment.

So, was it meant to be read literal? Not the passages that were written allegorically or poetically or prophetically. But the passages that were historical accounts without allegorical narratives or the legal passages, sure. Do I think it is infallible? No, it was written by fallible men. But if one is reading for intent and not for bias there's a lot of truth and wisdom contained in the books. To me the problem is not the fallible men who wrote the Bible or what they wrote. To me the problem is the fallible men who read the Bible and how they read it. If you are one of those guys who reads it to confirm your bias, we probably won't get along very well as I don't like correcting the errors of people - who don't practice my faith - who think they know my faith better than I know my faith. But if you aren't one of those guys, we'll get along great.

Fine, it's not the literal word of the god and so it's fallible.
And in fact, that makes it meaningless.

The concept of a 'god' outside of christian beliefs in nonsense that isn't to be interpreted as literal is a question I can entertain with an open mind. Try me on anything that comes to mind for you.

From my POV and interest, do you subscribe to the 6000 to 10,000 year old earth or do you subscribe to Darwinian evolution?

Or I suppose, there are other possibilities you can imagine up for the conversation?

 

[Donald H]

Intelligent design became an embarrassment to those who proposed the idea. They made the fatal mistake of trying to use completely wrong pseudo-science against real science.

Their best argument on the bacterial flagellum was completely destroyed when science proved conclusively that it was reducable.

Then instead of abandoning their relgious nonsense they went on to make the same stupid claim on the human eye!

Christianity didn't run from the ID nonsense fast enough. Some are so ignorant that they persiste on having their legs chopped off at the knees!

Good thing I'm not arguing that then.

Would you agree that the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit?

AND that if the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world? That everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal?

AND that there is no middle ground? That there is no other option? That either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't? That all other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive?

Would you agree with all of that?

The question of the material world being created by 'spirit' is a question even Hawking wouldn't attempt to answer definitively.

Stop trying to impress others with your commenting on topics you don't understand and on which you don't have the slightest clue!

If you're interested in a debate on the Christian faith then try to come back down to earth. This is boring and useless drivel at the best of times!