Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Religious Issues' started by WS6, Apr 20, 2012.
Complete gibberish. There is nothing here to suggest that this "first mover" was an intelligent being.
The post is pointless. It in no way suggests the existence of a god, let alone your god.
What do you know about me?
Show me proof to the contrary.
He certainly does
You really don't want to ask me that.
Atheists will never accept any proof that God exists. If he appeared directly in front of them, they'd still deny his existence.
Maybe that's why God offers no proof of his existence and wants us to accept him on faith?
Maybe that's God's way of sticking it to the atheists, because he knows that faith is a concept that's lost on most atheists?
God knows what he's doing.
This is the theory of Causation, something which suggests the Universe was created and to which zombies have no answer to.
No, just the same flawed theory that has been refuted dozens of times before, it offers nothing to support its assertion that there must have been an intelligent initiator (or "first mover"). Natural forces explain this just as well if not better.
Do you have a problem with this consideration?
Rebut the argument.
Your answer does not refute Causation. Refute or move on.
Mostly because it expresses a 13th century understanding of the natural world. In just the passage you quote, he talks about wood being "potentially hot", for example. How would that fit into an understanding of the universe based on quantum mechanics?
Are you willing to accept that god is not an intelligent being?
What are your quantum physics concerns in this regard?
How does my willingness one way or the other bear on this proof?
Does wood contain heat which is released by fire? Is that the actual physical process?
Is the first mover is not an intelligent being, or a being at all in the traditional sense, even if such a thing exists, then Christianity is refuted.
God sounds like a dick. Why was He so willing to prove his existence in the past?
If you believe that quantum physics negates a particular proposition of the proof in some way, make your case.
If you concede an unmoved mover, I will address this point.
I'm thinking gravity is the first mover.
What am I missing here?