No this is not true. I never did that.
A reason for existence of God
Re: A reason for existence of God
Hmm, ok. Where do you want to start from? I already showed that time cannot be created so it is started by no intervention. I also showed that other things, whatever can be found in the universe also do not need a cause. What else you are looking for?
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22265
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: A reason for existence of God
You think you did. But you didn't answer MY question. You answered what you understood to be the question, no doubt. But you missed.bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:38 pmI already answered you several times.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:25 pmWell, three things: one, that's obviously not the case. Pain is not synonymous with evil, and nobody who thinks for ten seconds thinks it is.
Two, and even more importantly, your decision to make "pain" mean "evil" is arbitrary. Where, outside of your own imagination, is it written that pain is evil, and evil means pain?
If it's arbitrary, then you can't expect anybody to find your question coherent.
And that's what, third, makes it your problem. You are trying to speak to other people about this, so a defintion that is only your own doesn't mean anything to them. They need an objective definition, showing that your utterance "god is evil," has some particular content. But absent any reference to a meta-ethic higher than the "god" you're talking about, you've got nothing for that, because you're a polytheist. It can't be your claim that "god" and "evil" refer to the same entity. It must be the case that you think, instead, that "evil" is a predication about "the god." But then, that standard of "evil" must come from some place higher than "the god" you're talking about. Where would that be?
It would have to seem that you're not grounding your assessment in any universal reality, then.
But I can see you can't follow this problem. So I guess I can't expect an answer.
And I can't make it simple enough for you. So that's on both of us, I guess.
Re: A reason for existence of God
Why don't you answer my question? What is good to you?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:52 pmYou think you did. But you didn't answer MY question. You answered what you understood to be the question, no doubt. But you missed.bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:38 pmI already answered you several times.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:25 pm
Well, three things: one, that's obviously not the case. Pain is not synonymous with evil, and nobody who thinks for ten seconds thinks it is.
Two, and even more importantly, your decision to make "pain" mean "evil" is arbitrary. Where, outside of your own imagination, is it written that pain is evil, and evil means pain?
If it's arbitrary, then you can't expect anybody to find your question coherent.
And that's what, third, makes it your problem. You are trying to speak to other people about this, so a defintion that is only your own doesn't mean anything to them. They need an objective definition, showing that your utterance "god is evil," has some particular content. But absent any reference to a meta-ethic higher than the "god" you're talking about, you've got nothing for that, because you're a polytheist. It can't be your claim that "god" and "evil" refer to the same entity. It must be the case that you think, instead, that "evil" is a predication about "the god." But then, that standard of "evil" must come from some place higher than "the god" you're talking about. Where would that be?
It would have to seem that you're not grounding your assessment in any universal reality, then.
But I can see you can't follow this problem. So I guess I can't expect an answer.
And I can't make it simple enough for you. So that's on both of us, I guess.
Re: A reason for existence of God
I have not agreed that time is started by no intervention. I am claiming God started it as a start of creating everything because he wanted to Love. God's Love is the cause of creation itself, and everything has a cause.
Re: A reason for existence of God
But I have shown that time cannot be created. Time also has a starting. Therefore, time started with no intervention.K1Barin wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:01 pmI have not agreed that time is started by no intervention.
I already showed you that time cannot have a cause.
Re: A reason for existence of God
Time could have started with its cause, all at once. And before that it was a state of no time, so we are unable to talk about it. Because nobody is able to talk in a state of no time. I mean talking has tenses for verbs and all that which require a sense of time.bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:07 pmBut I have shown that time cannot be created. Time also has a starting. Therefore, time started with no intervention.
I already showed you that time cannot have a cause.
Re: A reason for existence of God
That means that time existed and not existed at the point of creation! You have no room, my friend. Either time did not exist and then created or it existed and not existed at the point of creation.K1Barin wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:18 pmTime could have started with its cause, all at once....
Re: A reason for existence of God
I agree with it did not exist and then created. But when it happened, it happened at once. It did not consume any time.bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:25 pmThat means that time existed and not existed at the point of creation! You have no room, my friend. Either time did not exist and then created or it existed and not existed at the point of creation.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22265
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: A reason for existence of God
Because you can't even understand mine, apparently; so I think I've gone to "a well that's dry," so to speak, and there's evidently no point in trying any further. I'm not trying to frustrate you. But neither can I get something from you, if you can't understand the question.
Re: A reason for existence of God
Good. What do you mean by "then" here? It means that the act of creation of time needs the passage of time.K1Barin wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:39 pmI agree with it did not exist and then created.
You cannot have an apple pie and ate it at the same time!
Re: A reason for existence of God
I understand yours if you let me know. By the way, does God know His nature?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:42 pmBecause you can't even understand mine, apparently; so I think I've gone to "a well that's dry," so to speak, and there's evidently no point in trying any further. I'm not trying to frustrate you. But neither can I get something from you, if you can't understand the question.
Re: A reason for existence of God
Again before time existed, there is no means of communicating about what was happening then. Maybe even this can not be said about it.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22265
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: A reason for existence of God
I can see you don't. But I guess that, if you want to, you can go back over my messages and read them carefully. Eventually, maybe you'll get it.bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:51 pmI understand yours if you let me know.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:42 pmBecause you can't even understand mine, apparently; so I think I've gone to "a well that's dry," so to speak, and there's evidently no point in trying any further. I'm not trying to frustrate you. But neither can I get something from you, if you can't understand the question.
Hope springs eternal.
Re: A reason for existence of God
This is the last time I try: Either time existed and non-existed at the point of creation or it didn't exist and then existed. Take your pick. Which one?K1Barin wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:57 pmAgain before time existed, there is no means of communicating about what was happening then. Maybe even this can not be said about it.