Why do you think it is more reasonable to believe, God does not exist, rather that he exists?
Why do you think it is more reasonable to believe, God does not exist ?
(197 posts) (31 voices)-
Kodie
MemberThe existence of a deity cannot be proven, and so far as we know hasn't done anything that can't be explained some other way. I have tried to consider any form of god, like sheer agnostic consideration that any god might exist, and have eliminated the probability of there being a god or needing to be a god. I have approached the question from as many angles as I could think of, what could god even be for? Who could guess when he won't tell and can't be found? A god that useless almost certainly does not exist. I say "almost" because ... I don't know why. I feel pretty certain, but you have to leave that teensy window open for the wildly unlikely chance for the sake of logic.
Also, I don't -believe- god doesn't exist, I -do not believe- god exists. Belief and lack of belief are not the same thing.
Posted 3 years ago # -
The existence of a deity cannot be proven,
his IN existence either. So that is rather a pointless argument.
and so far as we know hasn't done anything that can't be explained some other way. I have tried to consider any form of god, like sheer agnostic consideration that any god might exist, and have eliminated the probability of there being a god or needing to be a god.
Why ? If there is no God, than you must stick to the idea, that absolutely nothing was the origin of EVERY thing ? how does that make sense to you ?
Also, I don't -believe- god doesn't exist, I -do not believe- god exists. Belief and lack of belief are not the same thing.
At the very right moment, you express here that you think, God does not exist, you express a belief.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Elemenope
ModeratorGod is an unnecessary auxiliary hypothesis for observed phenomena. It's much the same as why, though we can't prove that there are no invisible unicorns prancing about, we don't invoke a belief in their existence or add such a belief to descriptions of phenomena.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Kodie
MemberIt's not a belief, it's a lot more like a deduction. There is such a slim possibility of there being a god, that it is mostly impossible for there to be one. That's not a belief, that's using reasoning.
Why do you believe there is a god? How can you believe such a crazy thing and wonder what he wants? Why do you reject all forms of god but the one you believe in? I just think it's weird that anyone picks one, rejects all the rest. I don't know which god you believe in, but the rest of them, you are atheistic to. Do you believe they don't exist or do you not believe they do exist?
I don't know what the origin of everything was, but I don't think it was a deity that decided to go for it. I can't fathom a reason why a deity would do such a thing. Let me ask you, if there was a god and he decided to make the whole universe, which Home Depot did he go to to get the materials? Oh? I mean, a deity made all this out of nothing? Does that make any more sense to you?
Posted 3 years ago # -
Elemenope
ModeratorAt the very right moment, you express here that you think, God does not exist, you express a belief.
This is correct...
Also, I don't -believe- god doesn't exist, I -do not believe- god exists. Belief and lack of belief are not the same thing.
...but this is not. To have come to the conclusion that the existence of [x] is not knowable, you have to consider the concept [x] and assign auxiliary beliefs about attributes of [x] so as to make your determination. The only possible way to not have a belief about [x] is to never have considered the idea [x], which under normal circumstances requires never having been exposed to the concept [x] implies at all.
You are clearly familiar and conversant with the concept of God, hence you have beliefs about what the concept of God entails.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Kodie
MemberDude was quoting me on the second part - did I get it wrong? I usually get sense from you, but the part with the [x]s was confusing to me.
I believe there is not a god. - no
I do not believe there is a god. - yes?It was hard twisting it around with the don't at the beginning so it communicated the same thing.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Elemenope
ModeratorOh, I thought both quotes were from Zsidkenu. That's what I get from not reading the whole thread carefully. :D
But as to the point, no, both of these statements:
I believe there is not a god.
I do not believe there is a god....are expressions of a belief about the concept of God (namely, whether there are actual entities that match the concept). English grammar here is flexible enough to be misleading because in English we can deny holding a specific belief (i.e. "I do not believe...") without realizing that such a statement automatically entails the chiasmic belief "I believe there is not...".
"I do not believe..." is grammatically correct but has the unfortunate implication of denying having made a belief about the predicate concept, something which is flatly impossible. Once you become familiar with a concept, you have beliefs about it. "I believe there is not..." does not have the same disadvantage.
Posted 3 years ago # -
if it would be possible to quote, it would be better to distinct who writes what.
God is an unnecessary auxiliary hypothesis for observed phenomena.
You might ask first why at all there exist phenomenas, why we, why our universe does exist. Why is there something rather than nothing ? from absolutely nothing , nothing derives. Since we exist, always something must have existed. Since our universe had a beginning, the cause of our universe must be something meta-physical. Spiritual. God.
Posted 3 years ago # -
RCO
MemberI think of it more from the standpoint of you can believe in a form of God, but at the same time, you must know that at a point, God had to be developed, otherwise you do not have a beginning, since something had to happen to make a god exist in the first place. This is where you then must question if god is god or just a superior being.
Think of it as a man creates 2 androids with consciousness and with the ability to reproduce, is the man God?
My debate with if god exists comes from this question.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Kodie
Member...but this is not. To have come to the conclusion that the existence of [x] is not knowable, you have to consider the concept [x] and assign auxiliary beliefs about attributes of [x] so as to make your determination. The only possible way to not have a belief about [x] is to never have considered the idea [x], which under normal circumstances requires never having been exposed to the concept [x] implies at all.
"I do not believe..." is grammatically correct but has the unfortunate implication of denying having made a belief about the predicate concept, something which is flatly impossible. Once you become familiar with a concept, you have beliefs about it. "I believe there is not..." does not have the same disadvantage.
To be honest, I don't remember when I was first exposed to the idea that anyone believed in god at all. For as long as I can remember, I do not believe in god and would not have invented one. One childhood friend wore a Buddha charm on her necklace, and that terrible things would happen to her, like a curse, if she ever lost it (that doesn't sound like Buddhism to me). Another friend said we should climb to the highest spot in the neighborhood to be closest to god, this was when schools still had a day off for Good Friday, and so we went and stood there and nothing happened. I became aware that some of my friends went to church and catechism, and my next-door neighbors went to Catholic School and wore a green plaid uniform. When my cousins were baptised, and we went to church, I made up a pun on "the father, the son, and the holy ghost." I might have been 8 or 9 by then, and did not understand that my joke was a little tasteless (or totally blasphemous). My grandfather had some atheistic speech in his home (he mostly liked to rant about churches or politicians, I don't even really remember, and wish he was still alive so I could talk to him about it now), but nobody ever said to me what this god thing was or why I should believe in it until I was much older. My sister's best friend's parents were born-agains and kind of out of place where I lived. I became increasingly aware this god thing was pretty popular and was at once disturbed by it and not at all disturbed by it. I could not be convinced. I had no idea how anyone could be, but whatever. They are just stories and we don't make conscious decisions to not believe fiction is true. Normally.
As long as I found out eventually this was a big deal to people, applied critical analysis to the situation and imagined everything a god could be and why it could not be true, and made a decision based on the information, which just so happens to coincide with my state of thinking while in virtual ignorance of the whole affair, and all since we can't prove a negative 100% completely, then I what?
Posted 3 years ago # -
Lessica
MemberSince our universe had a beginning, the cause of our universe must be something meta-physical. Spiritual. God.
I'm just experimenting with quotations, so I don't know if the above will work, but...
Anyway, I understand your argument, and I don't see anything wrong with the first sentence. However, just because the universe may have come into existence as a result of something meta-physical doesn't necessarily mean God.
If this 'non-physical plane' makes it possible for something on the physical plane to come from nothing, why does it have to be a being or consciousness that instigates our universe's happening? We know nothing about this plane, so while it is technically possible that some kind of being which we could consider to be God exists there, there is nothing to indicate that that is the case.
If this God were to exist, however, it seems to be the deist's god, the one which crafts the universe and then leaves it to its own devices - the hit-and-run Creator, if you will. In that case, why should we care about whether he exists or not? If he does, he sure doesn't seem to give a shit about us.
If you have spiritual feelings which cause you to think that there's probably such a being, that makes enough sense to me. But my own 'beliefs' make as much sense of yours - maybe not more, but at least as much. Feel free to disagree, though.However, if you're talking about a specific, theistic conception of God (as most people tend to), then I find that atheism makes more sense. Based on your arguments so far, though, you seem to lean towards deism, which is cool with me.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Sock
MemberWhat exists that requires a God?
If you posit that existence exists, and that requires God, then all you're doing is adding an unnecessary step to the separation of non-being and being.
If you go back far enough, to the beginning of everything, and say that God had to exist to make everything, then I ask you who made God? If no one made God, he always was, then why can that not also be applicable to what the cosmos was before the big bang? Why could not that have just always been?
What has God done lately to warrant a belief in him? He hasn't reached down from heaven to save a bus of devout church goers from going over a cliff when the brakes fail. He hasn't done anything to cure aids, or start a rapture, or punish the wicked. It's been a good four thousand years since he (according to a bronze age book of myths and legends) wiped out an entire nation to protect his loyal followers.
If you look at the world for what it is, no God has done anything that random chance, humanity, and the laws of the universe cannot account for. So, to believe in an all powerful entity that cares about who I have sex with would serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever to the world. If I believe or not, the world remains the same.
But, if you want to believe that there's someone out there punishing the wicked (the only examples of that happening that I can think of is when people take it upon themselves to punish the wicked), and there's someone out there who cares that one man puts his penis in another man, and that there's someone out there who helped write a book that is used more as a tool of oppression and repression than it is a source of love and guidance to be a better person... if belief in that makes you feel warm and happy, then that's the only reason you can believe in a God. There is no logical or rational reason to do so.
Posted 3 years ago # -
truthseeker
MemberIn answering the initial question, "Why is it reasonable to believe God does not exist," depends on the standpoint from which one is looking. If from biology, there are great, coherent arguments for believing that it is more reasonable to believe God does not exist. There can be a case made for cellular life being the progenitor of all living species. However, from the standpoint of cosmology, it does not seem reasonable to believe that God does not exist. Most of the posts to this point have pointed to a lack of evidence. The problem with this is that the evidence we know of cosmology, at least for our universe, began with the Big Bang. What caused the Big Bang? The answer to that question cannot empirically speaking be a purely material cause. The reason is because there is not evidence that there was anything before this occurrence. Something, or Someone, had to provide the initial cause of this event.
One more question for your consideration, what about the issue of life coming from non-living matter? As stated earlier, there are arguments for life bringing forth life, however, from where did that original life come? What or Who provided that initial spark that brought forth life on this planet? My position is that there is an Intelligent Designer who provided for the origin of the world and for the presence of life on this earth. What do you think?
Posted 3 years ago # -
CoffeeJedi
MemberYou might ask first why at all there exist phenomenas, why we, why our universe does exist. Why is there something rather than nothing ? from absolutely nothing , nothing derives. Since we exist, always something must have existed. Since our universe had a beginning, the cause of our universe must be something meta-physical. Spiritual. God.
The reason is because there is not evidence that there was anything before this occurrence. Something, or Someone, had to provide the initial cause of this event.
That's simply the anthropomorphic fallacy with a bit of argument from final consequences thrown in.
First of all, the universe doesn't NEED a reason to exist. It just does. Human beings like to find reasons for things, but that doesn't mean that there is one.
And why is the answer to your backwards causality chain "God"? Couldn't it be "two other universal branes crashed into each other" or "mad scientist from another universe created it by accident"? Jumping to "Goddidit" is a HUUUUUGE leap.
Not to mention, current thinking posits that before the Big Bang, time itself didn't exist yet, neither did cause or effect. The universe popped into existence simply because there weren't any physical laws established that told it it couldn't.
If you can provide me evidence that a god-thing exists, I will consider it. But there is no evidence yet, so my base assumption is that one does not exist. It's not a "belief", its simply lack of belief until presented with a compelling argument.
Posted 3 years ago # -
CoffeeJedi
MemberOne more question for your consideration, what about the issue of life coming from non-living matter? As stated earlier, there are arguments for life bringing forth life, however, from where did that original life come? What or Who provided that initial spark that brought forth life on this planet? My position is that there is an Intelligent Designer who provided for the origin of the world and for the presence of life on this earth. What do you think?
What do you think life is? It's just incredibly complex chemical reactions. There is NOTHING to suggest that given enough time, life won't arise from basic chemicals. It doesn't NEED a cosmic boogeyman to do it.
And if there's a designer, he's an idiot. We're so poorly "designed" I couldn't imagine a designer being intelligent. Life on Earth has all the hallmarks of what you'd expect to find through natural selection and mutation.
You guys aren't coming to the table with anything new here, we've heard it all before and countered all these arguments countless times. The real question is, will you guys actually LISTEN to our rebuttals for once? I'm going to predict "No".
Posted 3 years ago # -
gininitaly
MemberWouldn't it make more sense to worship this all being divine universe we live in?
It is... therefore we are.
I simply find it much easier to eliminate the man created word 'God' and all those pesky interpretations. Whether we started from a, non understandable as yet Big Bang, the colliding of universes, to life from a puddle or the last rap singer. We need to embrace Ourselves. We are what we shall evolve into being, before, now and hereafter... isn't that wonderfully miraculous enough?!
Embrace the known that our minds as humans have discovered, and the unknown yet to be revealed. Take responsibility for OUR actions to others and our planet... God doesn't enter into it as a beneficent essence, we know that's not true, or if he is there... he's got a weird way of making so many suffer or rediculously rich.. and has a lot of explaining to do to me, as mother, grandmother, woman, human. I certainly wouldn't let my kids get away with such fickle behavior!
We are here by whatever luck or accident brought us here. Deal with it as it is without giving it an uneducated Alabama preachers bent on the subject... hunting and pecking for useful tidbits in some silly 2000 yr old book that wasn't even written by the man whom it was supposedly about.... and trying to use those pearls now or in the future?? Oh please..
Be proud of who we are and what we accomplish.
Be happy to be alive and fed with a roof over your head.. YOU did the work that supplied those things.
Be responsible as human beings.. because it's the right thing to do and benefits all of us.
Be thankful and count your blessings if you are fortunate enough to have them.
Be righteous in your fight for what is best for all of us... share what you have with those less fortunate or discover solutions that can alleviate the suffering...
Be kind, because it makes life more pleasant.
Be Godlike.. strong but fair, not like some we've been assaulted with.. that God that is in each and every one of us... USE it... we are powerful, don't forget that one little man or woman can make a change that can affect all of us... and that many together can make so much more.
Do we really need some outdated bad juju excuse for who we are? Or are we ready to take charge of our own knowledge, choices, creations and mistakes... that the only person to blame or applaude are ourselves.
Try embracing in awe, the grandness that is being a human being...
Posted 3 years ago # -
James G
Member"Why is there something rather than nothing ? from absolutely nothing , nothing derives. Since we exist, always something must have existed. Since our universe had a beginning, the cause of our universe must be something meta-physical. Spiritual. God."
So, to summarise, your argument for the existence of God is as follows:
1. In the beginning, there was nothing.
2. Then, there was something.
3. I don´t understand.
4. Therefore, God exists.The main problem with your argument is that it is just a rehashed "God of the Gaps" argument. According to Wikipedia, "such an argument can be reduced to the following form:
- There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.
- Therefore the cause must be supernatural."I could just as well hypothesize, like the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle VI, that the universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure. While that might sound ridiculous to you, it has precisely the same amount of evidence as your hypothesis - precisely zero.
Posted 3 years ago # -
However, just because the universe may have come into existence as a result of something meta-physical doesn't necessarily mean God.
If this 'non-physical plane' makes it possible for something on the physical plane to come from nothing, why does it have to be a being or consciousness that instigates our universe's happeninghttp://www.everystudent.com/journeys/who2.html
(1) Absolutely Nothing never existed. If it had, there would still be Absolutely Nothing now. But Something Else exists. You, for example.
(2) Since Absolutely Nothing never existed, there was always a time when there was something in existence. This something we can call the Eternal Something. The Eternal Something has no beginning and no end, has no needs that It Itself cannot meet, can do whatever is possible that can be done, and will always be superior to anything It produces.
(3) The Eternal Something is not a machine, controlled or programmed by any force outside Itself. And the Eternal Something will not produce out of necessity, since It has no needs. Therefore, if It produces Something Else, It must decide to do so. That means that the Eternal Something has a will; thus, It is personal. Therefore, the Eternal Something must actually be an Eternal Someone (or Someones).
If no one made God, he always was, then why can that not also be applicable to what the cosmos was before the big bang? Why could not that have just always been?
The Big Bang was the beginning of our cosmos. Before the Big Bang, there was no " before ". Everything physical that exists, began with the Big Bang.
There can be a case made for cellular life being the progenitor of all living species.
Although widely heralded for decades by the popular press as ‘proving’ that life originated on the early earth entirely under natural conditions, we now realize the experiment actually provided compelling evidence for the opposite conclusion.
‘Soon after the Miller–Urey experiment, many scientists entertained the belief that the main obstacles in the problem of the origin of life would be overcome within the foreseeable future. But as the search in this young scientific field went on and diversified, it became more and more evident that the problem of the origin of life is far from trivial. Various fundamental problems facing workers in this search gradually emerged, and new questions came into focus … . Despite intensive research, most of these problems have remained unsolved.
The universe popped into existence simply because there weren't any physical laws established that told it it couldn't.
And you think that is a rational statement ? Did you ever see something pop up out of literally nothing ? a girl friend, for example ?
Posted 3 years ago # -
WarbVIII
MemberI would like to point out,or reemphasize a point made earlier in this thread, If there HAD to be something that created everything, then it follows that there would HAVE to be something that created the creator...otherwise the first statement is meaningless. If you use the creator theory, that the creator came first and created everything because otherwise there would be nothing,then logically something had to create the creator, and you end up with a chain of creators, which amusingly enough is kind of like most theories about the big bang, a universe existed,expanded, and then contracted to a point that it exploded creating yet another new universe which then repeats the same cycle.
I would also like to throw out an idea about this that I had while reading this thread,don't know that it's original or anything,but can't say I can recall hearing or reading it elsewhere. It even suggests a cause and effect that definitively has no god,but does have a spark that begins it all,kinda sort of,lol. Okay, now various observable effects have led to a more or less common acceptance of a multiverse,that is an infinite number of possible universes, that exist side by side,where just about any possibile thing has happened, at present no one knows exactly how far or how close together these universes are,or indeed,what actually separates them from each other exactly,hell the may not even be following the same laws as our own and time is likely different in each one. So,if you will, imagine our own universe with nothing in it,a blank slate if you will, filled with say dark matter or anti-matter and nothing else, and then something slips through from another universe(or plane if you prefer) and this something could be any number of things,but for the sake of argument lets say it was matter(a grain of sand,lint,whatever),or energy(of any kind really), according to the laws of physics that are at work in this universe, we end up with the Big Bang. Granted I am not well versed in hard science, especially physics, but from what I do know if either matter or energy suddenly appeared in a universe without either,but that had anti-matter or dark matter, there would be a violent reaction(granted also I don't really understand dark matter at all, though I think it's existence is confirmed,the same goes for anti-matter though I am sure that IS confirmed). Now there is a theory that conforms to what is observable,but takes no creator,yet it does suggest a something that sparked creation of the cycle. I am not saying that THIS is what happened but something that could have happened and may even be at some point testable. Either way this to me sounds much more plausible than god did it, and better than The universe popped into existence simply because there weren't any physical laws established that told it it couldn't, in any event it's just a thought experiment,an idea, that I am not really sure about but it is more logical than the other two ideas presented so far, and a result of thinking about things at 2 am.Posted 3 years ago # -
burpy
Member"Did you ever see something pop up out of literally nothing ? a girl friend, for example ? "
From reading your posts, you seem an intelligent person, so surely you can do better than this. You´ve never seen it happen, so it can´t happen? You´re not even trying.
Is there a spiritual being that created the universe? I´m willing to concede that there might be (putting aside the problem of "reductio ad turtlum"). It´s just that, having created the universe, he has done nothing else. Or at least nothing that we have discovered any evidence for. Which makes me more inclined to think that the universe probably came into existence through some other agency. Of course, it could just be that God takes a long time over each move. So... create the universe... wait billions of years... spark off life on planet Earth... wait billions of years... tip the ball past Peter Shilton, causing England to be eliminated from the 1986 world cup... etc.
Posted 3 years ago # -
gininitaly
Member.... and the Tooth Fairie and Santa Claus... and just who hid all those damn eggs at 6 in the morning... I can tell you for fact... it was me.
Having some magic in our lives can be amusing and even allow that spark of questioning in our kids.. that just maybe, anything is possible, after all, we do live on a miraculous piece of real estate and do miraculous things.
But better to take care of it ourselves instead of waiting for 'you know who' to fill the bill, HE hasn't done such a great job so far.. or is HE only supposed to show up on Sundays? Oh oops every billion years right? I wish...Tell that to the republicans and the preachers, cause they're milking Him for everything they can in the meantime lol.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I would like to point out,or reemphasize a point made earlier in this thread, If there HAD to be something that created everything, then it follows that there would HAVE to be something that created the creator...
why should that be ? Why should God need to have a beginning ? why could he not be eternal, and beginningless ?
God is the Eternal Someone. He has always existed and will continue to do so.
Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God. (Psalms 90:2)
Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom. (Isaiah 40:28)
"This is what the LORD says -- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God." (Isaiah 44:6)
But the LORD is the true God; he is the living God, the eternal King. (Jeremiah 10:10)
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am." (John 8:58)
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. (Hebrews 13:8)
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." (Revelation 1:8)
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End." (Revelation 22:13)
Okay, now various observable effects have led to a more or less common acceptance of a multiverse,that is an infinite number of possible universes, that exist side by side,where just about any possibile thing has happened, at present no one knows exactly how far or how close together these universes are,or indeed,what actually separates them from each other exactly,hell the may not even be following the same laws as our own and time is likely different in each one.
the Multiverse proposal is well known, but in the end does not solve anything.
Even tiny variations in planetary distances, any more or less gravity, or any other difference in the current structure of the universe would make it hostile to life. The one model that explains this data without inventing fictional, unprovable multiverses is the creation model, which presents the planned, purposeful origin of space, time, matter, and life by a Creator. The only “data” that would seem to require multiverses is the absence of God—but this is not data, it is “science falsely so called,”2 empty imaginings devoid of evidentiary support.
When atheistic bias is removed, the old teleological argument still holds: Precise specification of fundamental parameters implies a precisely-minded “specifier.” University of Texas theoretical physicist Stephen Weinberg told Discover, “I don’t think that the multiverse idea destroys the possibility of an intelligent, benevolent creator. What it does is remove one of the arguments for it.” But it does not do that. Rather, the multiverse hypothesis is a conclusion based on the assumption that there is no Creator. Whereas there may be spiritual reasons to reject the Creator, there is not a scientific or logical one.3
From reading your posts, you seem an intelligent person, so surely you can do better than this. You´ve never seen it happen, so it can´t happen? You´re not even trying.
all our empirical experience shows, that nothing shows up from nothing. So why would YOU try to see if it might happen ?
Posted 3 years ago # -
burpy
Member"Even tiny variations in planetary distances, any more or less gravity, or any other difference in the current structure of the universe would make it hostile to life."
Well that may or may not be true. But if those things were the case, then the universe would just be different, and the conditions that would then exist would be just as statistically unlikely as they are now. How unlikely is it that an individual should win the lottery? And yet, every week, someone does. Does that prove that god picked that person to win? Does it prove that, just because the universe is amenable to life, as we know it, then there is a creator?
You´re correct in saying that science does not reject the idea of there being a creator of the universe. It simply has nothing to say on the matter until some evidence turns up. You won´t find many thoughtful people on this site saying that there definitely is no god or creator. But you´ll find many (including myself) who will say that the god of the bible or koran or bagavad gita is not him. I would stake my soul on it.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Elemenope
ModeratorWhy should God need to have a beginning ? why could he not be eternal, and beginningless ?
The problem here is it undercuts the whole argument. If God doesn't need a beginning, then the original posit that "the universe needs a beginning because everything needs a beginning" is called into question.
Posted 3 years ago # -
The problem here is it undercuts the whole argument. If God doesn't need a beginning, then the original posit that "the universe needs a beginning because everything needs a beginning" is called into question.
that was not my assertion.
But you´ll find many (including myself) who will say that the god of the bible or koran or bagavad gita is not him. I would stake my soul on it.
Oh really ? and how are you so sure about that ?
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.