Open Minded Agnostic Atheist

[ding]

Methinks the question "Why can't the universe popping into existence from nothing and being hardwired to create beings that know and create be proof of God's existence?" is a winning argument.

.
is that a statement of generic existence or the little voice you hear in your head and is that voice coming from that book you peddle, the christian bible - and if you removed the forgeries and fallacies written in your book do you think it might come (back) to life for the better part of society that presently is lacking ...

and no the universe did not pop into existence from nothing. can the metaphysical forces exist without physical influences in a dormant state or just not exist at all without material and there is not a certainty one is not as dependent as the other for their mutual existence.

So just to be clear, you don' believe that what was created is evidence of a creator?

It must be hard for you to straddle the line of pretending to believe in God and subvert belief in God at the same time.

 

[Taz]

Methinks the question "Why can't the universe popping into existence from nothing and being hardwired to create beings that know and create be proof of God's existence?" is a winning argument.

.
is that a statement of generic existence or the little voice you hear in your head and is that voice coming from that book you peddle, the christian bible - and if you removed the forgeries and fallacies written in your book do you think it might come (back) to life for the better part of society that presently is lacking ...

and no the universe did not pop into existence from nothing. can the metaphysical forces exist without physical influences in a dormant state or just not exist at all without material and there is not a certainty one is not as dependent as the other for their mutual existence.

So just to be clear, you don' believe that what was created is evidence of a creator?

It must be hard for you to straddle the line of pretending to believe in God and subvert belief in God at the same time.

And isn't a creator proof of another creator?

 

[ding]

Methinks the question "Why can't the universe popping into existence from nothing and being hardwired to create beings that know and create be proof of God's existence?" is a winning argument.

.
is that a statement of generic existence or the little voice you hear in your head and is that voice coming from that book you peddle, the christian bible - and if you removed the forgeries and fallacies written in your book do you think it might come (back) to life for the better part of society that presently is lacking ...

and no the universe did not pop into existence from nothing. can the metaphysical forces exist without physical influences in a dormant state or just not exist at all without material and there is not a certainty one is not as dependent as the other for their mutual existence.

So just to be clear, you don' believe that what was created is evidence of a creator?

It must be hard for you to straddle the line of pretending to believe in God and subvert belief in God at the same time.

And isn't a creator proof of another creator?

You just agreed with me.

Thank you for using I dump for you dot com.

 

[Meriweather]

I have to note that describing the Gods as incomprehensible and then immediately describing an accurate depiction of them is a complete contradiction.

And I have to note that you missed the qualification I made....

the most accurate depiction of God we humans are capable of understanding (God is love, God is forgiving).

Humans understand human attributes; it is the best we can do. However, at the same time we do understand the best we can do, the most accurate depiction we are capable of understanding is far from who God truly is.

When the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) applied emotions such as anger and jealousy it was to alert humans to our own failings. We disappoint ourselves; we know we can do better; we have an ideal we are striving to meet.

The problem with too many atheists is that they jump to the conclusion that if ideals are not met, we are in horrendous trouble. The opposite is the case. When we fail,, we have a being (and scripture) to help us to reach the ideal to which we strive--and that is to become the best we can be. That means not kicking ourselves when we cannot possibly become better than our best; but we don't give ourselves a pass when we do not meet what we know is our best. In other words, Good enough seldom is.

Do you know what a true believer has? They have joy. They have an awe of God, not a shivering fear.

 

[sealybobo]

Show me the peer reviewed scientific research on this theory/hypothesis.

He posted a link to an essay by an old hippie for backup on another thread. Don't hold your breath

He also used to go nuts arguing that the Earth was only about 6,000 years old and that carbon dating, dinosaur fossils and so forth were all horribly wrong or fake.

Creation science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Same questions to you.

Which one do you dispute and why? Do you dispute that space and time were created from nothing? Do you dispute that energy cannot be eternal without reaching thermal equilibrium? Do you dispute that the presence of energy creates space and time?

Because I would really really like to know what basis you have for disputing any of these consequences of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Do you have a scientific background that allows you to speak intelligently about the consequences of the SLoT? Because I'd like to know what peer reviewed papers you have that disprove the SLoT.

Lets say we agree with you. What are you saying that proves?

That the logical conclusion is that mind, rather than being a late outgrowth of the evolution of space and time, is the source or matrix of the material world such that the universe evolved to create beings that know and create.

The other logical conclusion is that everything alive dies eventually. So god is an impossibility.

Actually... If, as claimed by humanism, man were born only to be happy, he would not be born to die.

Maybe humanists are wrong. Born only to be happy?

What else are we born for?

To be fruitful, to create and to pass it on.

Same for dogs and pigs

 

[sealybobo]

Show me the peer reviewed scientific research on this theory/hypothesis.

He posted a link to an essay by an old hippie for backup on another thread. Don't hold your breath

He also used to go nuts arguing that the Earth was only about 6,000 years old and that carbon dating, dinosaur fossils and so forth were all horribly wrong or fake.

Creation science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Same questions to you.

Which one do you dispute and why? Do you dispute that space and time were created from nothing? Do you dispute that energy cannot be eternal without reaching thermal equilibrium? Do you dispute that the presence of energy creates space and time?

Because I would really really like to know what basis you have for disputing any of these consequences of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Do you have a scientific background that allows you to speak intelligently about the consequences of the SLoT? Because I'd like to know what peer reviewed papers you have that disprove the SLoT.

Look you stupid twat. The first thing I look up and see is this

What is nothing? Empty space? The absence of something? Scientists are hard-pressed to define the concept.

What Is Nothing? Physicists Debate

Physicists and philosophers debated the meaning of nothing, and whether nothing even exists, at a recent presentation at the American Museum of Natural History.

www.livescience.com

So if scientists are hard pressed to define the concept, what makes you think you are an expert on it?

First of all, that has nothing to do with what I am saying. We know that their description of nothing doesn’t contain the energy existing in this universe. Secondly, it has nothing to do with the thermodynamic reality that energy cannot exist eternally without equilibrating. To say nothing of the fact that the presence of energy creates space time. All of which tells us that the cause of the universe is something that is beyond energy and matter as we know it. And lastly, we know that the same laws that describe the evolution of space and time also describe how space and time could be created from nothing without violating the law of conservation.

So here I am having lots of reasons to believe as I do and you having zero reasons to believe as you do and you are calling me a twat? Really?

The things you know that are facts have nothing to do with proving anything about a god.

cause of the universe is something that is beyond energy and matter as we know it.

Yes. It's something we don't understand. Not a god. At least not he one that visits you.

Sure they are. Where’s your open mindedness you have been touting?

You have no reason to believe God doesn’t exist and I just gave you reasons why you should believe God does exist.

Which of your comments suggest a god exists?

energy cannot exist eternally without equilibrating.

the presence of energy creates space time.

the cause of the universe is something that is beyond energy and matter as we know it.

the same laws that describe the evolution of space and time also describe how space and time could be created from nothing without violating the law of conservation.

You already asked this. And I already answered this. See?

Open Minded Agnostic Atheist

So you guys had to make up a book that said god visited you because before that lie you didn't have enough to start an organized religion. You had to lie and say he visited. Then spent centuries cramming that like down our throats until we were brainwashed as a society same way in the middle...

www.usmessageboard.com

How else do you think a universe that was wired to produce beings that know and create popped into existence from nothing 14 billion years ago?

Why didn't god put life around every star? If I were god I'd have life everywhere. Not just one place in the universe.

 

[sealybobo]

Show me the peer reviewed scientific research on this theory/hypothesis.

He posted a link to an essay by an old hippie for backup on another thread. Don't hold your breath

He also used to go nuts arguing that the Earth was only about 6,000 years old and that carbon dating, dinosaur fossils and so forth were all horribly wrong or fake.

Creation science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Same questions to you.

Which one do you dispute and why? Do you dispute that space and time were created from nothing? Do you dispute that energy cannot be eternal without reaching thermal equilibrium? Do you dispute that the presence of energy creates space and time?

Because I would really really like to know what basis you have for disputing any of these consequences of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Do you have a scientific background that allows you to speak intelligently about the consequences of the SLoT? Because I'd like to know what peer reviewed papers you have that disprove the SLoT.

Look you stupid twat. The first thing I look up and see is this

What is nothing? Empty space? The absence of something? Scientists are hard-pressed to define the concept.

What Is Nothing? Physicists Debate

Physicists and philosophers debated the meaning of nothing, and whether nothing even exists, at a recent presentation at the American Museum of Natural History.

www.livescience.com

So if scientists are hard pressed to define the concept, what makes you think you are an expert on it?

First of all, that has nothing to do with what I am saying. We know that their description of nothing doesn’t contain the energy existing in this universe. Secondly, it has nothing to do with the thermodynamic reality that energy cannot exist eternally without equilibrating. To say nothing of the fact that the presence of energy creates space time. All of which tells us that the cause of the universe is something that is beyond energy and matter as we know it. And lastly, we know that the same laws that describe the evolution of space and time also describe how space and time could be created from nothing without violating the law of conservation.

So here I am having lots of reasons to believe as I do and you having zero reasons to believe as you do and you are calling me a twat? Really?

The things you know that are facts have nothing to do with proving anything about a god.

cause of the universe is something that is beyond energy and matter as we know it.

Yes. It's something we don't understand. Not a god. At least not he one that visits you.

Sure they are. Where’s your open mindedness you have been touting?

You have no reason to believe God doesn’t exist and I just gave you reasons why you should believe God does exist.

I have plenty of reasons not to believe

Why there is no god

Responses to common theist arguments

whynogod.wordpress.com

 

[BreezeWood]

Methinks the question "Why can't the universe popping into existence from nothing and being hardwired to create beings that know and create be proof of God's existence?" is a winning argument.

.
is that a statement of generic existence or the little voice you hear in your head and is that voice coming from that book you peddle, the christian bible - and if you removed the forgeries and fallacies written in your book do you think it might come (back) to life for the better part of society that presently is lacking ...

and no the universe did not pop into existence from nothing. can the metaphysical forces exist without physical influences in a dormant state or just not exist at all without material and there is not a certainty one is not as dependent as the other for their mutual existence.

So just to be clear, you don' believe that what was created is evidence of a creator?

It must be hard for you to straddle the line of pretending to believe in God and subvert belief in God at the same time.

So just to be clear, you don' believe that what was created is evidence of a creator?

It must be hard for you to straddle the line of pretending to believe in God and subvert belief in God at the same time.

.
the metaphysical forces have a central figure, the Almighty only makes sense and presently are responsible if not for the universe the physiology and spiritual existence of "living" beings on planet Earth - and purity without sin is how they, from antiquity, instructed all beings how their spirit may evolve after the physiology disappears to enter freely and for some time the Everlasting.

your christian bible is a deliberate corruption manufactured in the 4th century that is a disservice to humanity. bing.

 

[sealybobo]

Hollie, I know you've been involved in (rebutting) "creation science" nonsense here. I gather I've got ding confused with some other nuisance peddling that nonsense here like crazy for a while. Any idea who that was? Fort Fun was around too. If ding wasn't the main culprit he was largely supporting the idiot, I'm sure.

May have been "LittleNipper" prior to changing his name.

It's James Bond, and no, I didn't support him. He probably likes me less than you do.

But please do correct me if you can. Please do show us your science prowess. I'd like to see it.

If your science knowledge proved god existed then why are so many scientists atheists?

I don't think your logic is proving what you think it proves. If it did wouldn't a lot more people make these arguments?

Can you provide a link to anyone else who supports such thinking? Because I'll admit you are talking over my head with all this space time stuff. All I know is I've never heard a real scientists say what you are saying.

And I thought you were a rich businessman. TOday you are saying you were a scientist?

Something isn't jiving here. Especially when you didn't believe I got a stimulus check. Didn't you get one? Mine was only $950 because I am upper class. How much did you get?

It's not that I didn't believe you got a stimulus check, it's that I was surprised you got one considering how much you brag about being upper class. The upper class didn't get free money. They paid for the free money. I didn't qualify for any government cheese like you did.

As for the scientists who are atheists, I don't know what that distribution looks like. I also don't know that they have looked at it like I have. So I wouldn't put much stock in that. But putting that aside, are you seriously saying that you believe what others believe? Can't you think for yourself.

At the end of the day, you have no reasons to believe God doesn't exist and you just rejected reasons to believe God does exist, so your claim that you are open minded is BS. Just like your claim that you are upper class is BS.

As for my claim that I am a scientist... I've been a practicing engineer for 36 years. Engineering is the commercial application of science, so us engineers are pretty good at understanding and applying science.

I just looked it up. It says single filer $75,000

If your adjusted gross income is higher, the amount of your stimulus check will be phased out (reduced) by $5 for every $100 more in adjusted gross income up to the income limit of $99,000 for individuals
So I am both upper class and I got a stimulus check.

How much did you make that you got nothing?

Then I did the calculator and it says

Are you considered middle class in the U.S.?

NO, YOUR INCOME IS ABOVE MIDDLE CLASS

 

[BreezeWood]

Show me the peer reviewed scientific research on this theory/hypothesis.

He posted a link to an essay by an old hippie for backup on another thread. Don't hold your breath

He also used to go nuts arguing that the Earth was only about 6,000 years old and that carbon dating, dinosaur fossils and so forth were all horribly wrong or fake.

Creation science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Same questions to you.

Which one do you dispute and why? Do you dispute that space and time were created from nothing? Do you dispute that energy cannot be eternal without reaching thermal equilibrium? Do you dispute that the presence of energy creates space and time?

Because I would really really like to know what basis you have for disputing any of these consequences of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Do you have a scientific background that allows you to speak intelligently about the consequences of the SLoT? Because I'd like to know what peer reviewed papers you have that disprove the SLoT.

Look you stupid twat. The first thing I look up and see is this

What is nothing? Empty space? The absence of something? Scientists are hard-pressed to define the concept.

What Is Nothing? Physicists Debate

Physicists and philosophers debated the meaning of nothing, and whether nothing even exists, at a recent presentation at the American Museum of Natural History.

www.livescience.com

So if scientists are hard pressed to define the concept, what makes you think you are an expert on it?

First of all, that has nothing to do with what I am saying. We know that their description of nothing doesn’t contain the energy existing in this universe. Secondly, it has nothing to do with the thermodynamic reality that energy cannot exist eternally without equilibrating. To say nothing of the fact that the presence of energy creates space time. All of which tells us that the cause of the universe is something that is beyond energy and matter as we know it. And lastly, we know that the same laws that describe the evolution of space and time also describe how space and time could be created from nothing without violating the law of conservation.

So here I am having lots of reasons to believe as I do and you having zero reasons to believe as you do and you are calling me a twat? Really?

The things you know that are facts have nothing to do with proving anything about a god.

cause of the universe is something that is beyond energy and matter as we know it.

Yes. It's something we don't understand. Not a god. At least not he one that visits you.

Sure they are. Where’s your open mindedness you have been touting?

You have no reason to believe God doesn’t exist and I just gave you reasons why you should believe God does exist.

Which of your comments suggest a god exists?

energy cannot exist eternally without equilibrating.

the presence of energy creates space time.

the cause of the universe is something that is beyond energy and matter as we know it.

the same laws that describe the evolution of space and time also describe how space and time could be created from nothing without violating the law of conservation.

You already asked this. And I already answered this. See?

Open Minded Agnostic Atheist

So you guys had to make up a book that said god visited you because before that lie you didn't have enough to start an organized religion. You had to lie and say he visited. Then spent centuries cramming that like down our throats until we were brainwashed as a society same way in the middle...

www.usmessageboard.com

How else do you think a universe that was wired to produce beings that know and create popped into existence from nothing 14 billion years ago?

Why didn't god put life around every star? If I were god I'd have life everywhere. Not just one place in the universe.

Why didn't god put life around every star? If I were god I'd have life everywhere. Not just one place in the universe.

.
or a universe with an atmosphere - to sail freely from one end to the other ...

 

[sealybobo]

The SLoT precludes an infinite acting universe and it precludes energy being an eternal source for the creating the universe. So matter and energy being created from nothing without violating the FLoT is the only way the universe could have been created. Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedman's solutions to Einstein's field equations confirm that 14 billion years ago all of the energy in the universe occupied a tiny space and began to expand and cool until such time that beings that know and create were able to study what was created and conclude that the universe was created from nothing. So you don't find it odd that a universe that was wired to create beings that know and create popped into existence from nothing?

There's the reason you have been searching with your open mind, SB.

I would find it more odd if your god was real.

 

[sealybobo]

I am totally open to the idea that god is real I just don’t believe any religions are real. I like debating with theists who agree religions are man made up. I agree the universe and this planet are amazing. And it seems like it’s too perfect and there has to be some higher power. But we know so little still. Maybe there are other universes? Maybe there was is or will be life around every star eventually. Maybe not as advance as us but maybe more. And maybe the spirit lives on forever after you die. Just seems like wishful thinking to me. But I hope so. These are unknowable things.

So far I see no evidence of god and I don’t believe one exists. Everything can be explained scientifically. What can’t, may never be known. Those gaps aren’t god.

"OPEN-MINDED", "AGNOSTIC", "ATHEISTS"

Do you even know what you said?

#21

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

Why there is no god

Responses to common theist arguments

whynogod.wordpress.com

 

[BreezeWood]

Hollie, I know you've been involved in (rebutting) "creation science" nonsense here. I gather I've got ding confused with some other nuisance peddling that nonsense here like crazy for a while. Any idea who that was? Fort Fun was around too. If ding wasn't the main culprit he was largely supporting the idiot, I'm sure.

May have been "LittleNipper" prior to changing his name.

It's James Bond, and no, I didn't support him. He probably likes me less than you do.

But please do correct me if you can. Please do show us your science prowess. I'd like to see it.

If your science knowledge proved god existed then why are so many scientists atheists?

I don't think your logic is proving what you think it proves. If it did wouldn't a lot more people make these arguments?

Can you provide a link to anyone else who supports such thinking? Because I'll admit you are talking over my head with all this space time stuff. All I know is I've never heard a real scientists say what you are saying.

And I thought you were a rich businessman. TOday you are saying you were a scientist?

Something isn't jiving here. Especially when you didn't believe I got a stimulus check. Didn't you get one? Mine was only $950 because I am upper class. How much did you get?

It's not that I didn't believe you got a stimulus check, it's that I was surprised you got one considering how much you brag about being upper class. The upper class didn't get free money. They paid for the free money. I didn't qualify for any government cheese like you did.

As for the scientists who are atheists, I don't know what that distribution looks like. I also don't know that they have looked at it like I have. So I wouldn't put much stock in that. But putting that aside, are you seriously saying that you believe what others believe? Can't you think for yourself.

At the end of the day, you have no reasons to believe God doesn't exist and you just rejected reasons to believe God does exist, so your claim that you are open minded is BS. Just like your claim that you are upper class is BS.

As for my claim that I am a scientist... I've been a practicing engineer for 36 years. Engineering is the commercial application of science, so us engineers are pretty good at understanding and applying science.

I just looked it up. It says single filer $75,000

If your adjusted gross income is higher, the amount of your stimulus check will be phased out (reduced) by $5 for every $100 more in adjusted gross income up to the income limit of $99,000 for individuals
So I am both upper class and I got a stimulus check.

How much did you make that you got nothing?

Then I did the calculator and it says

Are you considered middle class in the U.S.?

NO, YOUR INCOME IS ABOVE MIDDLE CLASS

How much did you make that you got nothing?

.
bing said he works as an engineer on an oil rig in the middle of the gulf of mexico and thought bp got a bad rep for their oil spill.

* is that money worth making ...


- true capitalism is having a home, farm and 3 accouts at the brokarage firm and recieving the full $1200.00 ck from the gov't.

 

[Hollie]

I have to note that describing the Gods as incomprehensible and then immediately describing an accurate depiction of them is a complete contradiction.

And I have to note that you missed the qualification I made....

the most accurate depiction of God we humans are capable of understanding (God is love, God is forgiving).

Humans understand human attributes; it is the best we can do. However, at the same time we do understand the best we can do, the most accurate depiction we are capable of understanding is far from who God truly is.

When the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) applied emotions such as anger and jealousy it was to alert humans to our own failings. We disappoint ourselves; we know we can do better; we have an ideal we are striving to meet.

The problem with too many atheists is that they jump to the conclusion that if ideals are not met, we are in horrendous trouble. The opposite is the case. When we fail,, we have a being (and scripture) to help us to reach the ideal to which we strive--and that is to become the best we can be. That means not kicking ourselves when we cannot possibly become better than our best; but we don't give ourselves a pass when we do not meet what we know is our best. In other words, Good enough seldom is.

Do you know what a true believer has? They have joy. They have an awe of God, not a shivering fear.

“God is love, God is forgiving” is clearly not reflected in the Gods that humans invented as a part of the Bibles. I would point out that the gods are immoral and capricious. The Noah fable for one example depicts angry and vindictive Gods. As Gods are a human invention, it is not surprising that the gods exhibit all the human attributes of mankind and we see this consistently throughout the Bible.

I would not be so quick to categorize believers as necessarily having “joy”. I see a great many believers as fearful and cowering before their gods. Fear is a powerful motivational tool and one used historically by Christianity. Religions don’t coerce their adherents via promises of free thinking and individualistic expression, they use fear. I have no reason to believe I’m going to hell for not obeying a religious doctrine. The concept only derives from Christianity using fear to coerce behavior. What better way for an elite ruling class to coerce conformance from a population than to threaten them with such things as burning flesh, eternal damnation and eternal pain

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Open Minded Agnostic Atheist
⁜→ ding, et al,

creatorem coeli et terrae​

BLUF: I see a tall order of questions.

I'm asking everyone this question, so don't take it personal. Assuming it is true that the universe was created from nothing and assuming it is true that the creation of the universe was done for the express purpose of creating beings like us that know and create...

Why can't the universe popping into existence from nothing and being hardwired to create beings that know and create be proof of God's existence?

ASSUMPTIONS:

◈ "The universe was created from nothing."​

◈ The creation of the universe was done for the "express purpose."​

◈ The "express purpose" universe was to create beings.​

◈ The created beings would be sentient; consciousness.​

✦ Including a sense of perception.​

✦ Including a sense of self-awareness.​

✦ Including a capacity for sensation or feeling.​

(COMMENT)

Existence being, circumstantial at a glance (some say prima-facie) evidence for the existence of the Creator (the Supreme Being). All that exists is originally owed to the essence of the Supreme Being...

◈ Short Answer: Yes it is one possibility, yet improbable.​

​

Carl Sagan: “The Cosmos is everything that ever was, is, and will be.”

​

When I received my science degree, we simply called this the Aquinas Argument: Theory of First Motion. The evolution of the original Aquinas Argument is largely due to the acquisition of more pronounced information mixed with a dash of theology.

BTW: I am not a fan of this perspective. But it is out there and still in the mix. If anything, I see this as a contradiction to the idea of a merciful, forgiving and infallible, all-powerful, all-knowing → deity.

Foot Note:
_________________________________
• The assumptions were derived from the background and question.
• The characteristic of "Free Will" was not derived and was not inclued in the set of "like us."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[BreezeWood]

RE: Open Minded Agnostic Atheist
⁜→ ding, et al,

creatorem coeli et terrae​

BLUF: I see a tall order of questions.

I'm asking everyone this question, so don't take it personal. Assuming it is true that the universe was created from nothing and assuming it is true that the creation of the universe was done for the express purpose of creating beings like us that know and create...

Why can't the universe popping into existence from nothing and being hardwired to create beings that know and create be proof of God's existence?

ASSUMPTIONS:

◈ "The universe was created from nothing."​

◈ The creation of the universe was done for the "express purpose."​

◈ The "express purpose" universe was to create beings.​

◈ The created beings would be sentient; consciousness.​

✦ Including a sense of perception.​

✦ Including a sense of self-awareness.​

✦ Including a capacity for sensation or feeling.​

(COMMENT)

Existence being, circumstantial at a glance (some say prima-facie) evidence for the existence of the Creator (the Supreme Being). All that exists is originally owed to the essence of the Supreme Being...

◈ Short Answer: Yes it is one possibility, yet improbable.​

​

Carl Sagan: “The Cosmos is everything that ever was, is, and will be.”


View attachment 352253
​

When I received my science degree, we simply called this the Aquinas Argument: Theory of First Motion. The evolution of the original Aquinas Argument is largely due to the acquisition of more pronounced information mixed with a dash of theology.

BTW: I am not a fan of this perspective. But it is out there and still in the mix. If anything, I see this as a contradiction to the idea of a merciful, forgiving and infallible, all-powerful, all-knowing → deity.

Foot Note:
_________________________________
• The assumptions were derived from the background and question.
• The characteristic of "Free Will" was not derived and was not inclued in the set of "like us."

Most Respectfully,
R

✦ Including a sense of perception.
✦ Including a sense of self-awareness.
✦ Including a capacity for sensation or feeling.

.
roco, are the above a reference to physiology.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Open Minded Agnostic Atheist
⁜→ BreezeWood, et al,

​

✦ Including a sense of perception.
✦ Including a sense of self-awareness.
✦ Including a capacity for sensation or feeling.

roco, are the above a reference to physiology.

(COMMENT)

They are all part of the mental capacity associated with an undamaged (normal functions of living organisms) human "beings like us that know and create...." (Taken from "ding's" criteria).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Grumblenuts]

Again, I thank sealybobo for this topic. It has definitely helped resolve some things simmering on the back burners of my mind. While I'm certainly no fan of quantum mechanics in general ("says what?" indeed), I have no significant qualms with this little video which nicely reveals how much "we" really "know" about our observable universe's beginning, beyond 10^(-13) seconds from t = 0 anyways:

 

[Grumblenuts]

"beings like us that know and create...."

Tool use by non-humans - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Meriweather]

“God is love, God is forgiving” is clearly not reflected in the Gods that humans invented as a part of the Bibles.

Perhaps you do not know the Bible all that well?