Debunking a Creator

[Isimsiz Biri]

Okay IB.

 

I believe in Allah, and his final messenger Mohammed.

 

Saying it is not enough, you devil

[RongzomFan]

Allah is a demiurge.

[Isimsiz Biri]

Okay IB.

 

I believe in Allah, and his final messenger Mohammed.

 

 

Allah is a demiurge.

 

You are a liar. An approved one.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Isimsiz Biri

[RongzomFan]

You are a liar. An approved one.

 

I'm going by what you yourself said.

 

You said a Creator created cause and effect. Thus the Creator changes.

[Isimsiz Biri]

I'm going by what you yourself said.

 

You said a Creator created cause and effect. Thus the Creator changes.

 

There is no reason for Creator to change because Creator has created cause and affect.

 

If you could watch the videos, you may understand. But Mara will not let you.

[RongzomFan]

There is no reason for Creator to change because Creator has created cause and affect.

 

If the Creator is unchanging and beyond cause and effect, he cannot interact with our physics.

[Simple_Jack]

As of yet, no one has been able to debunk the point I made about Dharmic religions, considering it unnecessary to posit a creator god in order to understand the nature of afflictions.

 

 

E-prime as a legitimate basis for criticism = paradoxical reasoning.

 

Bump.

[RongzomFan]

There are only 3 options, all of which debunk a Creator:

 

1. Big Bang has no cause. Obviously, there is no Creator here.

 

2. The Big Bang has causes, which in itself has causes, which in itself has causes etc.

There is no place for a Creator in infinite regression of cause and effect.

 

3. Creator is beyond cause and effect. If Creator is beyond cause and effect, he would have no way of interacting with our physics.

P.S. insisting a Creator created cause and effect, makes the "Creator" into a changing demiurge.

[soaring crane]

OMG, 32 pages in 2 days?!?

[RongzomFan]

You are a liar. An approved one.

 

 

You are right. I believe Allah is a mundane ghost of some kind.

[Stosh]

May I suggest just 'OM' if you dont want to take sides.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Stosh

[soaring crane]

May I suggest just 'OM' if you dont want to take sides.

 

Hey, and I didn't even have to explain myself ;-)

[Aetherous]

[Simple_Jack]

OMG, 32 pages in 2 days?!?

 

I thought this thread would've been pitted by now.

[Simple_Jack]

As of yet, no one has been able to debunk the point I made about Dharmic religions, considering it unnecessary to posit a creator god in order to understand the nature of afflictions.

 

 

E-prime as a legitimate basis for criticism = paradoxical reasoning.

 

Bump.

[RongzomFan]

I thought this thread would've been pitted by now.

 

Its a holiday miracle

 

[Brian]

Lots of juvenile behavior but it keeps returning to the "creator" theme and hasn't dipped too deeply into TOS danger.

[Simple_Jack]

Lots of juvenile behavior but it keeps returning to the "creator" theme and hasn't dipped too deeply into TOS danger.

 

I've noticed a lot of biased behavior and double standards by gatito, ralis, etc.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

I've noticed a lot of biased behavior and double standards by gatito, ralis, etc.

 

Neither has anyone been able to debunk my statement, indicating that Dharmic religions, consider positing a creator god as unnecessary to understanding the nature of afflictions.

Edited December 7, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[RongzomFan]

If the Creator is uncaused and unchanging, the Creator is incompatible with our physics.

 

It would be like trying to use the full features of this forum with Internet Explorer 11.

Impossible.

Edited December 6, 2013 by RongzomFan

[chegg]

Neither has anyone been able to debunk my statement, indicating that Dharmic religions, consider positing a creator god as unnecessary to understanding the nature of afflictions.

 

If i was to have a go at debunking your statement, I'd simply say.

 

*Its wrong*.

 

Now you try and debunk my statement.

 

Regardless of what you say, I'll always have a counter-statement.

 

and the thread will go on forever since you cant really prove anything with just words posted on a thread.

 

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

 

Blessings of love and understanding. :wub: :wub: :wub:

Edited December 6, 2013 by chegg

[RongzomFan]

I've seen hamsters masturbate.

Edited December 6, 2013 by RongzomFan

[chegg]

I've seen hamsters masturbate.

 

 

Hamsters Practice......

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/17629-what-made-you-laugh-todaytonight/?p=502760

Edited December 6, 2013 by chegg

[ralis]

Humans are incapable of absolute understanding of totality. This thread affirms that.

[Stosh]

But. It doesnt prove it conclusively.. its just moot.