The Creatororientation
Re: The Creatororientation
Clear things have not to be demonstrated ! You have brain - use it !
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12259
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: The Creatororientation
Yes, either there is an infinite recursion of 'creators'' or there is no 'creator' or if there is then you have a thing with no cause and if you can have this then the Universe could also be a thing with no cause. Why do you accept a thing with no cause but reject that the Universe could also be one of these?manden wrote:Arising , can't you answer that yourself ?
What is it about the Universe that leads you to assume it had a creator?
Why do you not call 'it' "it"?The real creator of the universe has an unimaginable superior logic and power - he could create the universe .
Why do you keep calling 'it' "he" as you have no idea if 'it' has a gender?
You misunderstand Logic.And from an unimaginable superior logic we cannot say anything ! What is possible .
Re: The Creatororientation
It is also a gender ! It is clear : MORE OF HIM IS NOT RECOGNIZABLE ! The last big written sentence is guilty !
You have little to zero idea from logic ! Do not forget to use your brain !
You have little to zero idea from logic ! Do not forget to use your brain !
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12259
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: The Creatororientation
Why do you keep calling 'It' "Him"?manden wrote:It is also a gender ! It is clear : MORE OF HIM IS NOT RECOGNIZABLE ! The last big written sentence is guilty !
Sage advice, will you be taking it yourself anytime soon? As you clearly do not understand Logic which is why you avoid answering any questions about the logical consequences of your thoughts.You have little to zero idea from logic ! Do not forget to use your brain !
Re: The Creatororientation
It is eqal , which gender I use . We don' know about a gender ! But in human language it is not other possible .
My sentence about the unimaginable superior logic is clear . That you don't know what that means , is sad . I say what human logic is : all has a cause . Perhaps it helps you . Without thinking it does not function ,
My sentence about the unimaginable superior logic is clear . That you don't know what that means , is sad . I say what human logic is : all has a cause . Perhaps it helps you . Without thinking it does not function ,
Re: The Creatororientation
manden wrote: I say what human logic is : all has a cause.
Prove it.
And who are you to say what human logic is, unless you are also a human, just pretending.
Re: The Creatororientation
thedoc ,
You have logic - you must only use it ! - then you can prove it yourself ! Or are you too lazy ?
You have logic - you must only use it ! - then you can prove it yourself ! Or are you too lazy ?
Re: The Creatororientation
The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim, you made the claim, so you provide the proof, don't ask others to do your work for you.manden wrote:thedoc ,
You have logic - you must only use it ! - then you can prove it yourself ! Or are you too lazy ?
Re: The Creatororientation
Sorry , your problem .
Re: The Creatororientation
Claims require proof.manden wrote:Sorry , your problem .
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Claims without proof can be dismissed without consideration.
your claim is dismissed, I don't have a problem.
Re: The Creatororientation
Just because what we observe has a cause. does not prove that everything that we might encounter, will have a cause.
Re: The Creatororientation
logic means that all has a cause ! Grasp it or let it . In a kindergarten they understand more !
Re: The Creatororientation
that is wrong . The human beings have big problems to think with exact smple logic ! Also famous scientists like Stephen Hawking or others !
Re: The Creatororientation
manden wrote:that is wrong . The human beings have big problems to think with exact smple logic ! Also famous scientists like Stephen Hawking or others !
Thankyou for proving my point.
https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2012 ... -to-do-so/
From the article,
"The role played by time at the beginning of the universe is, I believe, the final key to removing the need for a Grand Designer, and revealing how the universe created itself. … Time itself must come to a stop [at the singularity]. You can’t get to a time before the big bang, because there was no time before the big bang. We have finally found something that does not have a cause because there was no time for a cause to exist in. For me this means there is no possibility of a creator because there is no time for a creator to have existed. Since time itself began at the moment of the Big Bang, it was an event that could not have been caused or created by anyone or anything. … So when people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the Big Bang, so there is no time for God to make the universe in. It’s like asking for directions to the edge of the Earth. The Earth is a sphere. It does not have an edge, so looking for it is a futile exercise.”[1]"