So it is that much more believable for the void that was before the universe to say, "Hm, today I feel like existence should happen." Yeah, you sound so much smarter then religious people. Chaos could not exist without creation/existence. And just saying, "Well, he's religious, so anything he says is blind nonsense." makes you sound like a dick.
I can say the same thing about god, see: So is it that much more believable for the void that was before the universe to say, "Hm, today I feel like God should come into existence."
There is no way to determine the true origin of the universe. Whatever existed before the universe is beyond our observation, no matter what we do. This argument will go nowhere fast.
Right, but by my argument we can determine which belief is more likely to be true as well as which belief has the burden of proof. As I've already said, believing in the eternal existence of the universe is more rational than believing in the eternal existence of a god.
Both require a burden of proof and both are impossible to prove. Occam's Razor isn't a good starting point for the origin of the universe... It's really not. Nothing has been proven eternal and cannot be proven eternal, so both claims are outstanding, and thus require proof to accept.
If you believe something was here always, why not a god. Maybe he (or should I say it) constituted existence and then created the rest. You are acting as if a god implies that god to be non-existent in terms of the universe.
I'm not making a claim remember, I said I don't know how the universe came to be. You are making the claim, you have the burden of proof. The universe always existing or coming in to existence on it's own is more likely to be true compared to the more complex explanation that a god always existed or came into existence on it's own. I don't believe anything about the how the universe came to be, maybe a god does exist and did create the universe, but that is less likely, and therefore irrational to believe.
This is the claim. I really don't get how the existence of a god or gods complicates it, but even if it somehow could be said to the fact remains that both make extraordinary claims and both are equally unprovable. Again, Occam's Razor is a terrible place to start on the origin of the universe. We cannot know whether or not the universe's existence is eternal, just as we cannot know whether or not the existence of a deity would somehow complicate it.
Because it adds on an extra unnecessary step. Either god came into existence on it's own/always existed and than created the universe or, more simply, the universe came into existence on it's own/always existed.
I'm not sure I know what you mean, but it sounds like you're saying that god could have always existed. Which gets the same answer that I've given you all the other times you've said that. Or am I misunderstanding you?
What I mean is what I said before, why can, by your previous statements, there be eternal existence, yet also by your previous statements, no chance of an eternal deity? It seems to me that, while you will accept an eternal existence, in the form of matter and energy, you will not even consider a deity. It seems hypocritical to me.
I never said there was no chance of an eternal deity. I'm merely saying it's less likely because it involves greater complexity.
True... But the way you word your posts make it sound as though you will not accept a deity, even though you never specifically said it. That and the fact I've been trying to get you to say that you'll entertain the possibility, but my goals have yet to reach fruition.
Isn't it obvious what I am? Anyways Judaism teaches that because God is so great, there is no point in trying to think of him as taking on any form. It makes sense because the God must be the one who has no filters. Who sees all in all of its forms. I also like how in Hindu beliefs, everything is a facet of God, and is oddly separate but connected. Only problem is that this in itself is limiting God, for example.
You're right, but when you think about the number of planets there are in the universe, there would be a few that have the perfect circumstances for life. There might be more, who knows? I'd only find it a coincidence or divine intervention if two or three of these planets were close together. Besides, seeing the age of the universe (or even it being eternal and without beginning or end), there has to be a time where there's a planet (or multiple planets) that can support life.
CorB - right on the money yet again! Nice use of Occam's razor! The existence of a god wouldn't be an answer, it'd just be another question. Who is god's god? Is god in a universe of his/her own? What came before god? What is god? How does dying in the Universe transport you into god's funhouse or painhouse? Why hasn't a soul/spirit been discovered? I don't know why people think that is simpler than god not existing.
Well for the "what came before god" question, in the previous debate CorB and I had, if you are willing to accept that the universe is eternal, why can't god be eternal;.
