The true living God

[ding]

That’s how I know the laws of nature existed before space and time.

The laws of nature are not like legislation that must be created, they are us putting structure onto the universe. It is like saying the laws of math existed before space and time because 1 + 1 always equal 2, it is true but it is meaningless.

There are physical, biological and moral laws of nature. Together these laws predestined that intelligence would arise.

Moral laws of nature? Like

• eat or be eaten
• might makes right
• survival of the fittest
• we are merely containers for our genes

More like right and wrong. You do believe you are evolving, right?

 

[alang1216]

Everything that was created is evidence.

Evidence of what? (Why do I feel we've been down this rabbit hole before?)

Of a creator.

If you create something can I use it as evidence?

Depends on the creation. Did a Creator make the Hawaiian Islands for was it natural tectonic forces?

 

[alang1216]

That’s how I know the laws of nature existed before space and time.

The laws of nature are not like legislation that must be created, they are us putting structure onto the universe. It is like saying the laws of math existed before space and time because 1 + 1 always equal 2, it is true but it is meaningless.

There are physical, biological and moral laws of nature. Together these laws predestined that intelligence would arise.

Moral laws of nature? Like

• eat or be eaten
• might makes right
• survival of the fittest
• we are merely containers for our genes

More like right and wrong. You do believe you are evolving, right?

Am I evolving? No. My morality was shaped in my youth and has not changed much since then. I like to think I'm better educated than I was but I wouldn't say more evolved.

 

[ding]

Everything that was created is evidence.

Evidence of what? (Why do I feel we've been down this rabbit hole before?)

Of a creator.

If you create something can I use it as evidence?

Depends on the creation. Did a Creator make the Hawaiian Islands for was it natural tectonic forces?

More like existence and then everything unfolded from there.

But back to my question, if you made a turkey sandwich or a cell phone, could I use that as evidence?

 

[ding]

That’s how I know the laws of nature existed before space and time.

The laws of nature are not like legislation that must be created, they are us putting structure onto the universe. It is like saying the laws of math existed before space and time because 1 + 1 always equal 2, it is true but it is meaningless.

There are physical, biological and moral laws of nature. Together these laws predestined that intelligence would arise.

Moral laws of nature? Like

• eat or be eaten
• might makes right
• survival of the fittest
• we are merely containers for our genes

More like right and wrong. You do believe you are evolving, right?

Am I evolving? No. My morality was shaped in my youth and has not changed much since then. I like to think I'm better educated than I was but I wouldn't say more evolved.

Professor Kohlberg would disagree with you.

So does common sense.

 

[alang1216]

Depends on the creation. Did a Creator make the Hawaiian Islands for was it natural tectonic forces?

More like existence and then everything unfolded from there.

But back to my question, if you made a turkey sandwich or a cell phone, could I use that as evidence?

Yes, BUT, you'd first have to show that they couldn't have unfolded from existence. Easy to do in the case of a turkey sandwich or a cell phone, harder to do in the case of the Hawaiian Islands.

 

[ding]

Depends on the creation. Did a Creator make the Hawaiian Islands for was it natural tectonic forces?

More like existence and then everything unfolded from there.

But back to my question, if you made a turkey sandwich or a cell phone, could I use that as evidence?

Yes, BUT, you'd first have to show that they couldn't have unfolded from existence. Easy to do in the case of a turkey sandwich or a cell phone, harder to do in the case of the Hawaiian Islands.

My point is that everything did. I am only using your experiences as a creator as a proxy.

 

[alang1216]

The laws of nature are not like legislation that must be created, they are us putting structure onto the universe. It is like saying the laws of math existed before space and time because 1 + 1 always equal 2, it is true but it is meaningless.

There are physical, biological and moral laws of nature. Together these laws predestined that intelligence would arise.

Moral laws of nature? Like

• eat or be eaten
• might makes right
• survival of the fittest
• we are merely containers for our genes

More like right and wrong. You do believe you are evolving, right?

Am I evolving? No. My morality was shaped in my youth and has not changed much since then. I like to think I'm better educated than I was but I wouldn't say more evolved.

Professor Kohlberg would disagree with you.

So does common sense.

Actually both would agree with me:

Kohlberg proposed a form of "Socratic" moral education and reaffirmed John Dewey's idea that development should be the aim of education​

Note education not evolution. More than just semantics I think.

 

[ding]

There are physical, biological and moral laws of nature. Together these laws predestined that intelligence would arise.

Moral laws of nature? Like

• eat or be eaten
• might makes right
• survival of the fittest
• we are merely containers for our genes

More like right and wrong. You do believe you are evolving, right?

Am I evolving? No. My morality was shaped in my youth and has not changed much since then. I like to think I'm better educated than I was but I wouldn't say more evolved.

Professor Kohlberg would disagree with you.

So does common sense.

Actually both would agree with me:

Kohlberg proposed a form of "Socratic" moral education and reaffirmed John Dewey's idea that development should be the aim of education​

Note education not evolution. More than just semantics I think.

I was talking about the morality progression.

Look, common sense says that no one remains static in their thinking or behaviors over the course of a long lived life. Are you certain you want to argue against this?

 

[alang1216]

Depends on the creation. Did a Creator make the Hawaiian Islands for was it natural tectonic forces?

More like existence and then everything unfolded from there.

But back to my question, if you made a turkey sandwich or a cell phone, could I use that as evidence?

Yes, BUT, you'd first have to show that they couldn't have unfolded from existence. Easy to do in the case of a turkey sandwich or a cell phone, harder to do in the case of the Hawaiian Islands.

My point is that everything did. I am only using your experiences as a creator as a proxy.

So what evidence do you have for something like a divine cell phone, something that couldn't have unfolded from existence?

 

[alang1216]

Moral laws of nature? Like

• eat or be eaten
• might makes right
• survival of the fittest
• we are merely containers for our genes

More like right and wrong. You do believe you are evolving, right?

Am I evolving? No. My morality was shaped in my youth and has not changed much since then. I like to think I'm better educated than I was but I wouldn't say more evolved.

Professor Kohlberg would disagree with you.

So does common sense.

Actually both would agree with me:

Kohlberg proposed a form of "Socratic" moral education and reaffirmed John Dewey's idea that development should be the aim of education​

Note education not evolution. More than just semantics I think.

I was talking about the morality progression.

Look, common sense says that no one remains static in their thinking or behaviors over the course of a long lived life. Are you certain you want to argue against this?

I have no issue with an individual's moral progression. I do take issue with Nature having Moral laws.

 

[ding]

Depends on the creation. Did a Creator make the Hawaiian Islands for was it natural tectonic forces?

More like existence and then everything unfolded from there.

But back to my question, if you made a turkey sandwich or a cell phone, could I use that as evidence?

Yes, BUT, you'd first have to show that they couldn't have unfolded from existence. Easy to do in the case of a turkey sandwich or a cell phone, harder to do in the case of the Hawaiian Islands.

My point is that everything did. I am only using your experiences as a creator as a proxy.

So what evidence do you have for something like a divine cell phone, something that couldn't have unfolded from existence?

But everything has unfolded from existence. Even you can’t argue against that.

The only question is the origin of existence. You see everything that has happened as random. I see everything that has happened as connected such that there is a reason behind every event.

 

[ding]

More like right and wrong. You do believe you are evolving, right?

Am I evolving? No. My morality was shaped in my youth and has not changed much since then. I like to think I'm better educated than I was but I wouldn't say more evolved.

Professor Kohlberg would disagree with you.

So does common sense.

Actually both would agree with me:

Kohlberg proposed a form of "Socratic" moral education and reaffirmed John Dewey's idea that development should be the aim of education​

Note education not evolution. More than just semantics I think.

I was talking about the morality progression.

Look, common sense says that no one remains static in their thinking or behaviors over the course of a long lived life. Are you certain you want to argue against this?

I have no issue with an individual's moral progression. I do take issue with Nature having Moral laws.

If there were no moral law then morals could be anything we want. That just isn’t the case.

 

[Mindful]

Right now, the True Living G-D is annoying the hell out of me.

 

[alang1216]

Depends on the creation. Did a Creator make the Hawaiian Islands for was it natural tectonic forces?

More like existence and then everything unfolded from there.

But back to my question, if you made a turkey sandwich or a cell phone, could I use that as evidence?

Yes, BUT, you'd first have to show that they couldn't have unfolded from existence. Easy to do in the case of a turkey sandwich or a cell phone, harder to do in the case of the Hawaiian Islands.

My point is that everything did. I am only using your experiences as a creator as a proxy.

So what evidence do you have for something like a divine cell phone, something that couldn't have unfolded from existence?

But everything has unfolded from existence. Even you can’t argue against that.

The only question is the origin of existence. You see everything that has happened as random. I see everything that has happened as connected such that there is a reason behind every event.

We can agree then that there is no evidence of a creator except for the origin of existence itself since everything we see in the universe has unfolded from existence. Marvelous!

On the question of the origin of existence, I'm agnostic. I don't know the answer to this question, there may have been a creator or there may not. So far as I can see there is no evidence either way. However, I don't see any evidence of reason behind every event.

 

[ding]

More like existence and then everything unfolded from there.

But back to my question, if you made a turkey sandwich or a cell phone, could I use that as evidence?

Yes, BUT, you'd first have to show that they couldn't have unfolded from existence. Easy to do in the case of a turkey sandwich or a cell phone, harder to do in the case of the Hawaiian Islands.

My point is that everything did. I am only using your experiences as a creator as a proxy.

So what evidence do you have for something like a divine cell phone, something that couldn't have unfolded from existence?

But everything has unfolded from existence. Even you can’t argue against that.

The only question is the origin of existence. You see everything that has happened as random. I see everything that has happened as connected such that there is a reason behind every event.

We can agree then that there is no evidence of a creator except for the origin of existence itself since everything we see in the universe has unfolded from existence. Marvelous!

On the question of the origin of existence, I'm agnostic. I don't know the answer to this question, there may have been a creator or there may not. So far as I can see there is no evidence either way. However, I don't see any evidence of reason behind every event.

No. We can agree that existence itself is evidence of a creator.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules, laws and information are signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

There's the evidence you couldn't see.

 

[alang1216]

Yes, BUT, you'd first have to show that they couldn't have unfolded from existence. Easy to do in the case of a turkey sandwich or a cell phone, harder to do in the case of the Hawaiian Islands.

My point is that everything did. I am only using your experiences as a creator as a proxy.

So what evidence do you have for something like a divine cell phone, something that couldn't have unfolded from existence?

But everything has unfolded from existence. Even you can’t argue against that.

The only question is the origin of existence. You see everything that has happened as random. I see everything that has happened as connected such that there is a reason behind every event.

We can agree then that there is no evidence of a creator except for the origin of existence itself since everything we see in the universe has unfolded from existence. Marvelous!

On the question of the origin of existence, I'm agnostic. I don't know the answer to this question, there may have been a creator or there may not. So far as I can see there is no evidence either way. However, I don't see any evidence of reason behind every event.

No. We can agree that existence itself is evidence of a creator.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules, laws and information are signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

There's the evidence you couldn't see.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Rules, laws and information are NOT necessarily signs of intelligence. If I allowed a solution of salt dissolved in water to evaporate the results will follow natural laws. The salt will form crystals with a regular pattern determined by the size and shape of the ions. The salt obeys physical laws but no intelligence is apparent in the laws or the results.

 

[ding]

My point is that everything did. I am only using your experiences as a creator as a proxy.

So what evidence do you have for something like a divine cell phone, something that couldn't have unfolded from existence?

But everything has unfolded from existence. Even you can’t argue against that.

The only question is the origin of existence. You see everything that has happened as random. I see everything that has happened as connected such that there is a reason behind every event.

We can agree then that there is no evidence of a creator except for the origin of existence itself since everything we see in the universe has unfolded from existence. Marvelous!

On the question of the origin of existence, I'm agnostic. I don't know the answer to this question, there may have been a creator or there may not. So far as I can see there is no evidence either way. However, I don't see any evidence of reason behind every event.

No. We can agree that existence itself is evidence of a creator.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules, laws and information are signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

There's the evidence you couldn't see.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Rules, laws and information are NOT necessarily signs of intelligence. If I allowed a solution of salt dissolved in water to evaporate the results will follow natural laws. The salt will form crystals with a regular pattern determined by the size and shape of the ions. The salt obeys physical laws but no intelligence is apparent in the laws or the results.

You can use your own experiences as a proxy to know that information and rules are a sign of intelligence.

Intelligence was predestined to arise through the laws of nature. The potential for intelligence to arise existed before space and time because the laws of nature existed before space and time.

 

[alang1216]

You can use your own experiences as a proxy to know that information and rules are a sign of intelligence.

Intelligence was predestined to arise through the laws of nature. The potential for intelligence to arise existed before space and time because the laws of nature existed before space and time.

My experience tells me that gravity operates according to know rules. The same rules that are everywhere in the universe. Was an intelligence needed to create the rules? I see nothing in my experience to answer yes to that question.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Professor Kohlberg would disagree with you.

So does common sense.

Haha..."common sense"...the "common sense" of you religious goobers is why we had to invent science in the first place...because you were pretty much always wrong. Still are.