Zone1 "Nothing creates itself"

[buttercup]

Wrong.
Impossible, since all things have to be created.
And obviously there is nothing special about anything.
All things that can happen will naturally happen if given enough time.

Are you an atheist? If so, it's interesting that you used the word "created." The word created implies a creator, and for that reason it's not a word that atheists typically use in discussions like this.

But anyway, believe what you want. I think what you said is woefully misguided and wrong on multiple levels, but I'm not here to debate the existence of God at the moment. I was just responding to rightwinger's comment.

 

[rightwinger]

The question itself shows a total lack of understanding on what God is.

God is not a created being. If God was a created being, then obviously that wouldn't be God, the one who created God would be God. And on and on and on and on.

The buck has to stop somewhere.

God is the uncaused First Cause. Eternal.

This question has been answered tons of times on this site. So either you haven't read those threads, or you're being disingenuous.

Again you cannot defend your claim that the universe could not have created by itself but that God was always here

Either way it involves creating something from nothing

 

[buttercup]

Again you cannot defend your claim that the universe could not have created by itself but that God was always here

Either way it involves creating something from nothing

You must be thinking of someone else, my post to you was my first post on this thread. But as for what you just said... I just had this conversation with someone else on another thread the other day. Just a minute, and I'll find that post and do a copypasta, since I don't have time right now to write it all out again.

 

[Libby von H]

You are allowed to believe in any fairy tale you wish

You just can’t prove any existence of God or his role in creating the universe and creating life

You are a tedious little runt. Are you admitting that you do not have a conviction that there was no Creator --- then get off your asss and get some facts.You never ask a question, make a comment , or make any movement closer or further away. You are annoying person , you know that

 

[rightwinger]

You are a tedious little runt. Are you admitting that you do not have a conviction that there was no Creator --- then get off your asss and get some facts.You never ask a question, make a comment , or make any movement closer or further away. You are annoying person , you know that

You keep dodging

You can’t provide any proof of an existence of God
Then attack those who need more than faith to believe your claims

 

[buttercup]

Again you cannot defend your claim that the universe could not have created by itself but that God was always here

Either way it involves creating something from nothing

Here's what I posted to someone else the other day. You're comparing apples and oranges.

God is not a physical "thing."

A universe that always existed would be an "actual infinite" and there are all sorts of logical problems with that idea, which is why one of the most influential mathematicians stated that an actual infinite is impossible in nature.

The cause of the universe has to be uncaused, eternal and transcendent (to time / space / matter) and the only thing that fits that perfectly is God.

ETA: After re-reading your post, maybe you weren't saying the universe is eternal, but that at one point there was nothing and then the universe created itself? If that's your claim, you're basically saying that nothing created everything. As opposed to intelligence creating everything. Which makes more sense? To me there's no contest.

 

[rightwinger]

Here's what I posted to someone else the other day. You're comparing apples and oranges.

God is not a physical "thing."

A universe that always existed would be an "actual infinite" and there are all sorts of logical problems with that idea, which is why one of the most influential mathematicians stated that an actual infinite is impossible in nature.

The cause of the universe has to be uncaused, eternal and transcendent (to time / space / matter) and the only thing that fits that perfectly is God.

ETA: After re-reading your post, maybe you weren't saying the universe is eternal, but that at one point there was nothing and then the universe created itself? If that's your claim, you're basically saying that nothing created everything. As opposed to intelligence creating everything. Which makes more sense? To me there's no contest.

It all comes down to you believing in a magical being

 

[buttercup]

It all comes down to you believing in a magical being

The only thing "magical" is the idea that nothingness created everything. Now THAT would truly be magical.

And that takes a hell of a lot more faith than believing that you and I and the universe and everything seen and unseen is not a mere accident. I would never have the amount of faith it takes to believe what you believe.

 

[rightwinger]

The only thing "magical" is the idea that nothingness created everything. Now THAT would truly be magical.

And that takes a hell of a lot more faith than believing that you and I and the universe and everything seen and unseen is not a mere accident. I would never have the amount of faith it takes to believe what you believe.

Or a magical creature who created the universe and then went

Poof …..
Poof
Poof

Creating animals

 

[Foxfyre]

Indeed. Sinple but profound.

Which is another argument for why intelligent design should not be barred from the science class. No one living or dead I believe has been able to create life from inert substances, yet the 'settled' scientific theory is that somehow the ancient 'soup' of stuff on Earth became the first living organisms. At least first on this planet.

Others theorize those organisms must have been delivered by meteorites or something.

So why is it so far fetched the they could not have been created by something outside our planet or solar system?

Science should never insist minds be closed about anything that has not been proved or disproved.

 

[buttercup]

Or a magical creature who created the universe and then went

Poof …..
Poof
Poof

Creating animals

^ Nowhere near as magical as intelligence being created by no intelligence, life being created by no life, everything being created by a literal nothing.

If that's what you actually believe, then I'm going to have to conclude that you have the highest level of faith possible, and you truly trust in magic! Good for you! I admire that level of faith. Hahahaha. I could never have that much faith, but anyway.... you do you.

 

[rightwinger]

Which is another argument for why intelligent design should not be barred from the science class. No one living or dead I believe has been able to create life from inert substances, yet the 'settled' scientific theory is that somehow the ancient 'soup' of stuff on Earth became the first living organisms. At least first on this planet.

Others theorize those organisms must have been delivered by meteorites or something.

So why is it so far fetched the they could not have been created by something outside our planet or solar system?

Science should never insist minds be closed about anything that has not been proved or disproved.

Magic does not deserve the same credibility as science

 

[rightwinger]

^ Nowhere near as magical as intelligence being created by no intelligence, life being created by no life, everything being created by a literal nothing.

If that's what you actually believe, then I'm going to have to conclude that you have the highest level of faith possible, and you truly trust in magic! Good for you! I admire that level of faith. Hahahaha. I could never have that much faith, but anyway.... you do you.

I believe in the powers of Chemistry and Physics

There is ample proof they exist
Not a magical creator

 

[buttercup]

I believe in the powers of Chemistry and Physics

There is ample proof they exist
Not a magical creator

Ok. And who created chemistry and physics? No one's denying they exist. Where did it come from?

 

[rightwinger]

Ok. And who created chemistry and physics? No one's denying they exist. Where did it come from?

A magical being?

 

[buttercup]

A magical being?

That's not what I believe, but don't deflect, answer the question. Come on, own your belief... absolute nothingness created everything! Right?

I don't have time right now for this, I've got some stuff I gotta do today, but if you finally answer the question, I'll try to get back here later.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

polytheism - the metaphysical forces together as one formed the 1st atom - and have been united ever since ...

- all in the heavens are the same in likeness and image, equal unto themselves.

- then came along liars and misfits who began the desert religions led by liars and misfits who wrote their books of forgeries and fallacies and believed by mostly criminals and misfits to this day.

Were you there? I consider you a bigot because there is no proof that they didnt see all the events that happened before.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Either the entire universe was self created OR God Created it and that yields the question “whom or what ‘created’ God?”

Either way, it appears unavoidable that something must have existed prior to being “created.” After that, maybe it’s true that nothing (else) can exist without being created. But it still boils down to something or some Entity had to have existed without being “created” by a predecessor.

That brings us into the “supernatural.” Natural law, as we grasp it, says that “nothing can exist prior to itself.” Yet there has to be that first exception. That’s outside the bounds of what we understand as “natural.”

“Supernatural,” therefore, doesn’t have to implicate a Divine God. But as soon as we acknowledge the in total exception, it becomes necessary to admit that it is possible that God exists as the Prime Creator of All.

Not if God has always been. Man, in his imperfect way, tries with his very limited intelligence, to comprehend what God is.

 

[Foxfyre]

Magic does not deserve the same credibility as science

But if there is no explanation for the 'magic' then the scientific mind wants to know how it happened. A closed mind is not scientific. And when it comes to science, humankind knows everything there is to know about pretty much zilch.

 

[rightwinger]

But if there is no explanation for the 'magic' then the scientific mind wants to know how it happened. A closed mind is not scientific.

The logic of…..You can’t explain this so it must be magic escapes me