God is ineffable. God cannot be material. God cannot, as sophisticated theology and philosophy teaches us, be "a" being at all. God is, rather than ineffable ground of all being or Being Itself. God is that from which all other beings derive their essence and that by which they are instantiated in reality. To call Him merely "a" being would be absurd since that would imply He was just one of the beings rather than that inexplicable, self-existence in which, and through which, all those beings have their being.
I used to be a devout Christian and I never thought any such silly thing.
QuoteI used to be a devout Christian and I never thought any such silly thing.And now he's an atheist and doesn't think "any such silly thing" either. Logic fail.
Why is that a logic fail?
But you knew this, right?
You know there's a difference between layman and expert, and the difference matters, right? I'm sure you know it, but when it comes to anything to do with religion, you conveniently forget all about it.
Sounds like you missed the point.
You can read the book 'The Grand Design' by Stephen Hawking (along with other leading physicists), and try to understand it the best you can (it is written in layman's terms), or you can be an ostrich and bury your head in the sand with the old ideas of your God until you croak.
When asked: "What did God do before he created the universe?" Augustine didn't reply: "He was preparing Hell for people who asked such questions." Instead, he said that time was a property of the universe that God created, and that time did not exist before the beginning of the universe.
Since a God isn't necessary for our existence, is the existence of a God necessary? No, it is not. We can close the book on God once and for all now--besides a God complicates the question of existence simply because you then have to explain an impossible-to-explain entity--very messy and contra Occam's Razor.
God is a logically necessary metaphysical foundation of everything for intellectuals who see or seek reason and rationality everywhere.
- Instead of atomism or emergentism (forms of physicalist theory), I hold to the continuum theory.
I find the continuum theory very much something that either is a monumental fallacy (a fallacy that I can't identify because it seems to me to make sense in everything and to be a much more "pure" model) or a revolutionary truth. So revolutionary that it affects the entire way how humans sees the world.
The world human beings created was not modeled by the continuum theory but by several evolutions of the atomistic perception.
Page created in 0.041 seconds with 43 queries.