A logic line.
(only assumption) we are not figments in the dream of an over-imaginative entymologist or, [insert matrix or other false-reality idea here].
Something either exists, or it doesn't. Something cannot half-exist. If god exists, he must actually exist. No evidence for god exists. There is no reason to believe that god exists.
Something either exists, or it doesn't. Something cannot half-exist. If god exists, he must actually exist. No evidence for god exists. There is no reason to believe that god exists.
The main problem with the notion of god is that those who would find reason to accept a god need very little, if any convincing to do so... and of course... absolutely no evidence at all seems to be needed to indoctrinate one.. So we are fighting a rather one-sided battle by taking on the task of providing evidence where they required none in the first place.
My personal feelings on dealing with hardcore creationists, is not unlike the boy who got himself stuck in the pool jet... Why on earth...? Although probably much more understandable, still baffles.
The problem becomes more complicated by the mere fact that looking for evidence either for or against God only has a one-track solution. That is.. Only if you find evidence for the existence of God, which will be happily accepted.. where as any refutation, no matter how solid is met with a wall of 'faith' Perhaps the true nature of the armor of god... being that it is intellectually indestructible.
I think we all agree- it can't be proven one way or the other.
So, supposing there was a creator who existed before possessed of some qualities of omnipotence. We should quantify god in a fitting manner. That god is all things, and no things. the literal alpha and omega. So If in creating the universe, all of the physical laws are obeyed, that energy can neither be created nor destroyed... would it be plausible to conclude that in order to create all things, he had to use himself up, perhaps entirely?
Reply
Leave a comment