Does God want us to judge him?

[buttercup]

I don’t know anyone (who understands logic) who would deny that logic is objective.

I'm not denying that. I am saying it is a manmade construct. I reject your conditional statement, "If manmade, therefore subjective". Unless you want to agree that, say, we merely discovered logic and mathematics, instead of inventing them. I'm cool with that.

But no, logic does not show us truth. Again, I can easily form a valid argument, defying no rules of logic, why unicorns simply must make ice cream in the 6th dimension.

I’m glad that at least you acknowledge that logic is objective, but you’re very wrong in claiming that it’s man-made. Objective truths are universal, they are true for everyone, everywhere, regardless of what we believe. Objective truths are not man-made...in the same way that we didn’t create the universe itself, or the physical laws of the universe, like gravity, etc. It is absurd to think otherwise.

Yes we can agree that we discover logic and mathematics, instead of inventing them. But when you say that, you seem to be contradicting yourself by also claiming it’s man-made.

And I didn’t make the claim that logic shows us truth. But logic is an example of objective universal truth, and one that clearly involves intelligence. As I said earlier, once you can admit that certain things exist universally, that are real, but immaterial… it will be easier for you to accept the existence of God. Which I know you don’t want to do, but I’m just saying…

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You being a thing can never understand a no thing. The closest you will ever be able to understand a no thing that creates space and time is a mind without a body.

I do love me some irony. Oh ding, you really are adorable.

 

[Hollie]

I'm sure you don't at all understand the negative affects of belligerent Bible thumping.

I understand there is a distribution for everything. And in that distribution adherents do all kinds of things. But by any objective measure Christianity has been a force for good. For instance, Christians created wonderful charities and organizations. Spreading the Good Word is part of our Theology. You arguing against my theology is effectively proselytizing the Jewish theology of not proselytizing

I suppose it's convenient to ignore the horrors that Christianity has inflicted on believers and non-believers alike.

There are always those out there who claim their religion is so love-oriented that to not believe in it deserves death. I don't really understand the level of a mind that claims to worship a god of mercy and love, and then condemns anyone who disagrees with them to torture and death. On the other hand, this fits in exactly with most religious doctrines; life tends to be cheap in the theistic philosophy, mainly because the adherent's believe that life continues after death, or it is replaceable by the various gods. It is ultimately, even if only on a subconscious level, alright to kill people, because you are "sending them to a better place", or so goes the thinking. This is why the alleged "holy books" tend to be filled with violence and calls to wars. I long for the day when the priest, pastor or reverend gets up in the pulpit and reads aloud the verses in their holy books that applaud rape, murder, and pillage. In some cases, like in the Book of Joshua in the Bible, there seems to be nothing but murder and violence. Of course, the theologians won't read out those passages of the Bible in their sermons -- but you can!

No. Any objective assessment should evaluate all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth. I just can't believe a Jew is making an argument against God. Or is your argument just against Christians? In that case you sound like you are proletizing your faith, and that's a Jewish no no.

Present the objective assessment for magic and supernaturalism.

At the heart of this discussion are the two options; space and time was created by no thing or it wasn't. You being a thing can never understand a no thing. The closest you will ever be able to understand a no thing that creates space and time is a mind without a body.

Another of the "..... because I say so" claims you cut and paste across multiple threads, totally unsupported.

 

[ding]

Remind me again if you were one of the atheists who pussed out on categorically stating that atheists are materialists. Cause I am pretty sure you are.

No idea what you are talking about. But deists are often, if not always, also atheists and, clearly, are not all materialists. So I think you can delete "ding copypasta talking point #298,6354" from the spreadsheet.

Of course you wouldn't. I watched with great interest. I wanted to see what you would do. I would have bet good money you wouldn't have pussed out like that.

Logic does show the way to truth.

Yes, it can, as I said. But it does not determine what is true.

What is true won't be illogical. So it does rule out things that aren't.

The belief of spiritualism is that space and time were created from no thing.

You mean, your definition of spiritualism. Good for you. Maybe it's true, for all I know. Doesn't change a thing for me.

No. Not mine. A simple distinction based on logic. The universe and everything in it including everything incorporeal originated from matter/energy. Or spirit created the material world. Everything else will simplify to one of these two boundary conditions. That is the heart of the discussion. Ignore it at the risk of embarrassment.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But when you say that, you seem to be contradicting yourself by also claiming it’s man-made.

No, because I was throwing out "manmade" in favor of "discovered".

But logic is an example of objective universal truth, and one that clearly involves intelligence.

Intelligence... to discover? or, to design? I reject any claim that it must have been designed. We don't need any God at all to account for it, not even a deistic god.

certain things exist universally, that are real, but immaterial… it will be easier for you to accept the existence of God.

What things are those? Could you be more specific? List, say, 5 or 6.

 

[ding]

You being a thing can never understand a no thing. The closest you will ever be able to understand a no thing that creates space and time is a mind without a body.

I do love me some irony. Oh ding, you really are adorable.

Let's just say you have an unreal perception of what you believe God to be and I don't.

From now on try perceive God as mind without a body. Something we can't possibly understand inside the material world. No material thing can exist forever. Yet we know laws of nature existed before space and time because space and time obeyed those laws during creation. So if you assume that everything was 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.

 

[Hollie]

I don’t know anyone (who understands logic) who would deny that logic is objective.

I'm not denying that. I am saying it is a manmade construct. I reject your conditional statement, "If manmade, therefore subjective". Unless you want to agree that, say, we merely discovered logic and mathematics, instead of inventing them. I'm cool with that.

But no, logic does not show us truth. Again, I can easily form a valid argument, defying no rules of logic, why unicorns simply must make ice cream in the 6th dimension.

I’m glad that at least you acknowledge that logic is objective, but you’re very wrong in claiming that it’s man-made. Objective truths are universal, they are true for everyone, everywhere, regardless of what we believe. Objective truths are not man-made...in the same way that we didn’t create the universe itself, or the physical laws of the universe, like gravity, etc. It is absurd to think otherwise.

Yes we can agree that we discover logic and mathematics, instead of inventing them. But when you say that, you seem to be contradicting yourself by also claiming it’s man-made.

And I didn’t make the claim that logic shows us truth. But logic is an example of objective universal truth, and one that clearly involves intelligence. As I said earlier, once you can admit that certain things exist universally, that are real, but immaterial… it will be easier for you to accept the existence of God. Which I know you don’t want to do, but I’m just saying…

You're making claims to "Objective truths are universal, they are true for everyone". Clearly they are not.

I do not think there is such a thing as "Objective truths are universal". And, if you look at the history of Christianity, Judaism and Islam you will realize that neither do those religious beliefs. The deeds that they (sometimes) condemn now are the same ones that they performed in antiquity. No institution in history has changed its moral stance as much as the religious institutions. Humanistic ethics are based on compassion and reason, and are far more moral than those based on the bribery of future reward or the fear of future torture. Would you want your child to do the right thing because he knew it was the right thing to do, or because he wanted a reward and feared a punishment?

The problem with the theistic application of attributes to the gods is the suggestion of an "objective” or a “moral” God(s). It means nothing in human context. What does it mean? How do you define an objective or moral god(s) when you cannot be the god from the god's perspective? My complaint regarding the morality of the gods is based exclusively on the listed ethics in the various holy texts which fall far short of present day ethics man applies in modern day civilization. That is why there is such outrage against sharia in Moslem countries. It's not because they go "against the word of God" -- but because they adhere to the word of god. Why is that?

 

[ding]

I understand there is a distribution for everything. And in that distribution adherents do all kinds of things. But by any objective measure Christianity has been a force for good. For instance, Christians created wonderful charities and organizations. Spreading the Good Word is part of our Theology. You arguing against my theology is effectively proselytizing the Jewish theology of not proselytizing

I suppose it's convenient to ignore the horrors that Christianity has inflicted on believers and non-believers alike.

There are always those out there who claim their religion is so love-oriented that to not believe in it deserves death. I don't really understand the level of a mind that claims to worship a god of mercy and love, and then condemns anyone who disagrees with them to torture and death. On the other hand, this fits in exactly with most religious doctrines; life tends to be cheap in the theistic philosophy, mainly because the adherent's believe that life continues after death, or it is replaceable by the various gods. It is ultimately, even if only on a subconscious level, alright to kill people, because you are "sending them to a better place", or so goes the thinking. This is why the alleged "holy books" tend to be filled with violence and calls to wars. I long for the day when the priest, pastor or reverend gets up in the pulpit and reads aloud the verses in their holy books that applaud rape, murder, and pillage. In some cases, like in the Book of Joshua in the Bible, there seems to be nothing but murder and violence. Of course, the theologians won't read out those passages of the Bible in their sermons -- but you can!

No. Any objective assessment should evaluate all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth. I just can't believe a Jew is making an argument against God. Or is your argument just against Christians? In that case you sound like you are proletizing your faith, and that's a Jewish no no.

Present the objective assessment for magic and supernaturalism.

At the heart of this discussion are the two options; space and time was created by no thing or it wasn't. You being a thing can never understand a no thing. The closest you will ever be able to understand a no thing that creates space and time is a mind without a body.

Another of the "..... because I say so" claims you cut and paste across multiple threads, totally unsupported.

I don't say so. Logic says so. All other possibilities reduce to these two lowest common denominators; space and time was created by no thing or it wasn't..

 

[ding]

I don’t know anyone (who understands logic) who would deny that logic is objective.

I'm not denying that. I am saying it is a manmade construct. I reject your conditional statement, "If manmade, therefore subjective". Unless you want to agree that, say, we merely discovered logic and mathematics, instead of inventing them. I'm cool with that.

But no, logic does not show us truth. Again, I can easily form a valid argument, defying no rules of logic, why unicorns simply must make ice cream in the 6th dimension.

I’m glad that at least you acknowledge that logic is objective, but you’re very wrong in claiming that it’s man-made. Objective truths are universal, they are true for everyone, everywhere, regardless of what we believe. Objective truths are not man-made...in the same way that we didn’t create the universe itself, or the physical laws of the universe, like gravity, etc. It is absurd to think otherwise.

Yes we can agree that we discover logic and mathematics, instead of inventing them. But when you say that, you seem to be contradicting yourself by also claiming it’s man-made.

And I didn’t make the claim that logic shows us truth. But logic is an example of objective universal truth, and one that clearly involves intelligence. As I said earlier, once you can admit that certain things exist universally, that are real, but immaterial… it will be easier for you to accept the existence of God. Which I know you don’t want to do, but I’m just saying…

You're making claims to "Objective truths are universal, they are true for everyone". Clearly they are not.

I do not think there is such a thing as "Objective truths are universal". And, if you look at the history of Christianity, Judaism and Islam you will realize that neither do those religious beliefs. The deeds that they (sometimes) condemn now are the same ones that they performed in antiquity. No institution in history has changed its moral stance as much as the religious institutions. Humanistic ethics are based on compassion and reason, and are far more moral than those based on the bribery of future reward or the fear of future torture. Would you want your child to do the right thing because he knew it was the right thing to do, or because he wanted a reward and feared a punishment?

The problem with the theistic application of attributes to the gods is the suggestion of an "objective” or a “moral” God(s). It means nothing in human context. What does it mean? How do you define an objective or moral god(s) when you cannot be the god from the god's perspective? My complaint regarding the morality of the gods is based exclusively on the listed ethics in the various holy texts which fall far short of present day ethics man applies in modern day civilization. That is why there is such outrage against sharia in Moslem countries. It's not because they go "against the word of God" -- but because they adhere to the word of god. Why is that?

The expectation is for a universal truth. Subjectivity keeps everyone from seeing it. Truth is discovered. I already explained this.

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.

 

[buttercup]

I don’t know anyone (who understands logic) who would deny that logic is objective.

I'm not denying that. I am saying it is a manmade construct. I reject your conditional statement, "If manmade, therefore subjective". Unless you want to agree that, say, we merely discovered logic and mathematics, instead of inventing them. I'm cool with that.

But no, logic does not show us truth. Again, I can easily form a valid argument, defying no rules of logic, why unicorns simply must make ice cream in the 6th dimension.

I’m glad that at least you acknowledge that logic is objective, but you’re very wrong in claiming that it’s man-made. Objective truths are universal, they are true for everyone, everywhere, regardless of what we believe. Objective truths are not man-made...in the same way that we didn’t create the universe itself, or the physical laws of the universe, like gravity, etc. It is absurd to think otherwise.

Yes we can agree that we discover logic and mathematics, instead of inventing them. But when you say that, you seem to be contradicting yourself by also claiming it’s man-made.

And I didn’t make the claim that logic shows us truth. But logic is an example of objective universal truth, and one that clearly involves intelligence. As I said earlier, once you can admit that certain things exist universally, that are real, but immaterial… it will be easier for you to accept the existence of God. Which I know you don’t want to do, but I’m just saying…

You're making claims to "Objective truths are universal, they are true for everyone". Clearly they are not.

Don’t misunderstand what I’m saying. It doesn’t matter whether people agree or disagree. Objective truths are true for everyone, everywhere regardless of what people believe or disbelieve. For example, 2+ 2 = 4. If someone were to disagree with that, it doesn’t make that truth subjective. Objective truth is not something that we make up ourselves. I can claim I am a purple polka-dot pony, that wouldn’t make it true in reality, it would only be true in my mind. In the same way, objective truths are true in reality, regardless of our opinions or personal preferences.

I do not think there is such a thing as "Objective truths are universal". And, if you look at the history of Christianity, Judaism and Islam you will realize that neither do those religious beliefs. The deeds that they (sometimes) condemn now are the same ones that they performed in antiquity. No institution in history has changed its moral stance as much as the religious institutions. Humanistic ethics are based on compassion and reason, and are far more moral than those based on the bribery of future reward or the fear of future torture. Would you want your child to do the right thing because he knew it was the right thing to do, or because he wanted a reward and feared a punishment?

You’re entitled to believe what you want, but to deny objective truth is to deny reality. You are bringing up morality, and you seem to be saying that because in your opinion morality is subjective, that all truth is subjective. Well that is clearly wrong, we know that certain things are objectively true. As for morality, that’s a different topic, and as I told Fort, it’s one that should probably go on its own thread. Personally I believe that morality is objective, but we need to take things one step at a time here. You seem to be denying all truth, which has to be addressed first before moving on to things like morality. Correct me if I’m wrong about your position.

The problem with the theistic application of attributes to the gods is the suggestion of an "objective” or a “moral” God(s). It means nothing in human context. What does it mean? How do you define an objective or moral god(s) when you cannot be the god from the god's perspective? My complaint regarding the morality of the gods is based exclusively on the listed ethics in the various holy texts which fall far short of present day ethics man applies in modern day civilization. That is why there is such outrage against sharia in Moslem countries. It's not because they go "against the word of God" -- but because they adhere to the word of god. Why is that?

I’m sorry, but your first sentence made zero sense. Can you rephrase it? As for the second thing you said, I think for now you should set aside books like the Bible, and look at this from a purely philosophical standpoint. Do you believe that raping and murdering an innocent child for no reason is truly wrong, always...yes or no? Again, do not make the mistake of thinking that disagreement means it’s subjective. Of course there are going to be crazy or evil people out there who murder children and don’t think it’s wrong. I’m not asking you if everyone agrees on it. I am asking you if YOU think it is truly wrong, in an external way, regardless of what a crazy individual thinks or what some corrupt culture thinks.

 

[Hollie]

I suppose it's convenient to ignore the horrors that Christianity has inflicted on believers and non-believers alike.

There are always those out there who claim their religion is so love-oriented that to not believe in it deserves death. I don't really understand the level of a mind that claims to worship a god of mercy and love, and then condemns anyone who disagrees with them to torture and death. On the other hand, this fits in exactly with most religious doctrines; life tends to be cheap in the theistic philosophy, mainly because the adherent's believe that life continues after death, or it is replaceable by the various gods. It is ultimately, even if only on a subconscious level, alright to kill people, because you are "sending them to a better place", or so goes the thinking. This is why the alleged "holy books" tend to be filled with violence and calls to wars. I long for the day when the priest, pastor or reverend gets up in the pulpit and reads aloud the verses in their holy books that applaud rape, murder, and pillage. In some cases, like in the Book of Joshua in the Bible, there seems to be nothing but murder and violence. Of course, the theologians won't read out those passages of the Bible in their sermons -- but you can!

No. Any objective assessment should evaluate all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth. I just can't believe a Jew is making an argument against God. Or is your argument just against Christians? In that case you sound like you are proletizing your faith, and that's a Jewish no no.

Present the objective assessment for magic and supernaturalism.

At the heart of this discussion are the two options; space and time was created by no thing or it wasn't. You being a thing can never understand a no thing. The closest you will ever be able to understand a no thing that creates space and time is a mind without a body.

Another of the "..... because I say so" claims you cut and paste across multiple threads, totally unsupported.

I don't say so. Logic says so. All other possibilities reduce to these two lowest common denominators; space and time was created by no thing or it wasn't..

The rules of logic don’t resolve to magic and supernaturalism.

 

[Hollie]

I don’t know anyone (who understands logic) who would deny that logic is objective.

I'm not denying that. I am saying it is a manmade construct. I reject your conditional statement, "If manmade, therefore subjective". Unless you want to agree that, say, we merely discovered logic and mathematics, instead of inventing them. I'm cool with that.

But no, logic does not show us truth. Again, I can easily form a valid argument, defying no rules of logic, why unicorns simply must make ice cream in the 6th dimension.

I’m glad that at least you acknowledge that logic is objective, but you’re very wrong in claiming that it’s man-made. Objective truths are universal, they are true for everyone, everywhere, regardless of what we believe. Objective truths are not man-made...in the same way that we didn’t create the universe itself, or the physical laws of the universe, like gravity, etc. It is absurd to think otherwise.

Yes we can agree that we discover logic and mathematics, instead of inventing them. But when you say that, you seem to be contradicting yourself by also claiming it’s man-made.

And I didn’t make the claim that logic shows us truth. But logic is an example of objective universal truth, and one that clearly involves intelligence. As I said earlier, once you can admit that certain things exist universally, that are real, but immaterial… it will be easier for you to accept the existence of God. Which I know you don’t want to do, but I’m just saying…

You're making claims to "Objective truths are universal, they are true for everyone". Clearly they are not.

I do not think there is such a thing as "Objective truths are universal". And, if you look at the history of Christianity, Judaism and Islam you will realize that neither do those religious beliefs. The deeds that they (sometimes) condemn now are the same ones that they performed in antiquity. No institution in history has changed its moral stance as much as the religious institutions. Humanistic ethics are based on compassion and reason, and are far more moral than those based on the bribery of future reward or the fear of future torture. Would you want your child to do the right thing because he knew it was the right thing to do, or because he wanted a reward and feared a punishment?

The problem with the theistic application of attributes to the gods is the suggestion of an "objective” or a “moral” God(s). It means nothing in human context. What does it mean? How do you define an objective or moral god(s) when you cannot be the god from the god's perspective? My complaint regarding the morality of the gods is based exclusively on the listed ethics in the various holy texts which fall far short of present day ethics man applies in modern day civilization. That is why there is such outrage against sharia in Moslem countries. It's not because they go "against the word of God" -- but because they adhere to the word of god. Why is that?

The expectation is for a universal truth. Subjectivity keeps everyone from seeing it. Truth is discovered. I already explained this.

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.

I find it ironic that you would reference universal truths when your gods have no real interest in those attributes. A god of love and justice who drowns the world, sends plagues, brings down civilizations, he allows maniacal generals to slay thousands upon his command. He will allow vials of death and disease and chaos and mayhem to reign supreme, and he will let you go to hell for all time for not "choosing correctly".

How about slavery. Is it a universal truth that slavery is condemnable? What do the gods have to say about slavery in the Bible’s?

 

[Taz]

God gave us free will so that we could judge him.

 

[ding]

No. Any objective assessment should evaluate all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth. I just can't believe a Jew is making an argument against God. Or is your argument just against Christians? In that case you sound like you are proletizing your faith, and that's a Jewish no no.

Present the objective assessment for magic and supernaturalism.

At the heart of this discussion are the two options; space and time was created by no thing or it wasn't. You being a thing can never understand a no thing. The closest you will ever be able to understand a no thing that creates space and time is a mind without a body.

Another of the "..... because I say so" claims you cut and paste across multiple threads, totally unsupported.

I don't say so. Logic says so. All other possibilities reduce to these two lowest common denominators; space and time was created by no thing or it wasn't..

The rules of logic don’t resolve to magic and supernaturalism.

It’s only magic to you because being a thing you can’t relate to a no thing.

So you call it magic when in reality it is like consciousness that exists independent from a material body. Of course you can’t relate to it and act the way you do. You are threatened by what you don’t understand.

 

[ding]

God gave us free will so that we could judge him.

See Job 40 for his response.

 

[Taz]

God gave us free will so that we could judge him.

See Job 40 for his response.

Job was a whiny loser.

 

[Taz]

Present the objective assessment for magic and supernaturalism.

At the heart of this discussion are the two options; space and time was created by no thing or it wasn't. You being a thing can never understand a no thing. The closest you will ever be able to understand a no thing that creates space and time is a mind without a body.

Another of the "..... because I say so" claims you cut and paste across multiple threads, totally unsupported.

I don't say so. Logic says so. All other possibilities reduce to these two lowest common denominators; space and time was created by no thing or it wasn't..

The rules of logic don’t resolve to magic and supernaturalism.

It’s only magic to you because being a thing you can’t relate to a no thing.

So you call it magic when in reality it is like consciousness that exists independent from a material body. Of course you can’t relate to it and act the way you do. You are threatened by what you don’t understand.

So what made your "no thing"?

 

[ding]

God gave us free will so that we could judge him.

See Job 40 for his response.

Job was a whiny loser.

Oldest book in the Bible and Job wasn’t even a Jew. Fascinating stuff.

 

[ding]

At the heart of this discussion are the two options; space and time was created by no thing or it wasn't. You being a thing can never understand a no thing. The closest you will ever be able to understand a no thing that creates space and time is a mind without a body.

Another of the "..... because I say so" claims you cut and paste across multiple threads, totally unsupported.

I don't say so. Logic says so. All other possibilities reduce to these two lowest common denominators; space and time was created by no thing or it wasn't..

The rules of logic don’t resolve to magic and supernaturalism.

It’s only magic to you because being a thing you can’t relate to a no thing.

So you call it magic when in reality it is like consciousness that exists independent from a material body. Of course you can’t relate to it and act the way you do. You are threatened by what you don’t understand.

So what made your "no thing"?

No thing is eternal and unchanging. A thing cannot be eternal and unchanging.

 

[Hollie]

Present the objective assessment for magic and supernaturalism.

At the heart of this discussion are the two options; space and time was created by no thing or it wasn't. You being a thing can never understand a no thing. The closest you will ever be able to understand a no thing that creates space and time is a mind without a body.

Another of the "..... because I say so" claims you cut and paste across multiple threads, totally unsupported.

I don't say so. Logic says so. All other possibilities reduce to these two lowest common denominators; space and time was created by no thing or it wasn't..

The rules of logic don’t resolve to magic and supernaturalism.

It’s only magic to you because being a thing you can’t relate to a no thing.

So you call it magic when in reality it is like consciousness that exists independent from a material body. Of course you can’t relate to it and act the way you do. You are threatened by what you don’t understand.

I just find it concerning that you are detached from reality.
Your religion of spirit realms is entirely a function of belief in magic. I would suggest we can alternately define magic as submitting to fear and superstition.

How really convenient that your spirit realms are excempt from any examination by rational science.

Creationist dogma will never increase our understanding or knowledge of the physical world because knowledge is antithetical to the creationist. What is not already written in the bible is relegated to the unknowable hand of God moving in his creation. Fear and superstition has caused the Genesis story to be repeated for three thousand years and we know no more of existence now than when that tale was first written by the hand of man. In the last two hundred years of taking a scientific approach to studying the natural world, we have learned most of what we know about how living things work.