Do theists sort of think that belieiving in god makes god real?

[Hermit]

That is exactly what I want you to explicate with the question "What now?"

Remember the context is that God exists.

No need to remind me. It's what I wrote in the first post (#58) that I addressed to you: "OK, let's accept for the sake of the argument that the universe (all space, matter, time and energy) began to exist from something that was spaceless, timeless and immaterial. So we are assuming the existence of a spaceless, timeless and immaterial creator. What now?"

I’m not sure what you are asking. The context is too open. Are you asking how does that effect our understanding of the universe? Are you asking how you should then live your life? Are you suggesting that knowing he exists does not change anything? Etc. Please clarify?

I am asking about any and all of what you mentioned. Assuming the existence of a spaceless, timeless and immaterial creator of everything, how does that affect our understanding of the universe? How can we discover how we should then live our lives? For the purpose of this exercise I am not suggesting that knowing he exists does not change anything. I am asking you what it changes, how it changes and how can we know what those changes are.

Does it enable us to understand the universe any better?

Depends on what you are trying to understand.

Well, the existence of a spaceless, timeless and immaterial creator takes care of abiogenesis, doesn't it? So what is left we don't know about the universe? There are lots of holes in our scientific body of knowledge, I suppose. A grand unifying theory, if one is possible, would be a great step forward in our understanding.

Again it depends what you are trying to understand.
Origin vs operational science.

I just explained what I'm trying to understand. The bit you quoted has me commenting that the existence of a spaceless, timeless and immaterial creator takes care of abiogenesis. You know that "abiogenesis" is a synonym for "origin", right? So we can leave a discussion of origin aside, don't you agree? Then I mentioned that there are lots of holes in our scientific body of knowledge. That would be "operational", right?

So, here is your mission, should you choose to accept it: Assuming the existence of a spaceless, timeless and immaterial creator of everything, how does that affect our understanding of the universe? How can we discover how we should then live our lives? It's a repeat of what I asked in post #58, but put in other words in the hope that you will understand the question

 

[bilby]

Well ……..?

That it is past eternal.

That inference is based on what?

The same thing as yours - it's one of the equally supported possible interpretations of what we can observe - which is that the universe existed at the Planck time, and that we cannot know what happened before that time.

There is nothing in the SBBM that makes your inference more reasonable than mine. Either the universe began to exist at the Big Bang; or the Big Bang was caused by an earlier state of the universe.

If you want to jump off the train of reason by claiming that something could exist before it began to exist then be my guest.

You are assuming your conclusion with this assertion. An eternal universe doesn't have a 'before', and doesn't begin to exist; If the Big Bang is a point at which the universe changes state, then it's perfectly reasonable to consider what occurs before it; Only if we assume that the Big Bang is the beginning of the universe does your objection come into play - so it is circular reasoning on your part.

I can see why you WANT the universe to have started, because you think that if it did, your beliefs are better supported. But that's not a reason for anyone other than you to accept without evidence that it did.

My position is one of reason supported by the EVIDENCE of the SBBM. Your position is the one of want, standing opposed to reason and wanting of evidence.

You have no more evidence than I do. It is a simple fact that we do not currently know whether the Big bang is the beginning of the universe, or whether it is a point at which the universe changed into what we see today, from some unknown prior state.

As I have said, I consider the first law of thermodynamics as justification for my inclination the other way; but I am aware that this is insufficient to make a firm determination.

We've discussed this before. The law is one that undeniably describes a phenomenon of the universe, but could not reasonably exist without this universe. It describes what is, it can’t prescribe what is. Hence it provides no evidence to infer an eternal past.

It describes everything that has ever been observed. I assert not that it must apply before the Planck time - only that it is not unreasonable to imagine that it might.

Your entire position appear to me to be an argument from lack of humility.

And yet you so humbly think you are right about that.
My how the tables have turned.

I have offered reasoned position supported by evidence.

No, you haven't.

You provide wanted speculation without any evidence that actually stands opposed to reason itself.
Wow.

Nothing I have speculated about opposes any reason; And nothing you have presented is any less speculative than what I have presented.

Indeed, as you are claiming the existence of something before there was anything, I say that your claim is absurd. I, on the other hand, am simply suggesting that it is not unreasonable to claim that 'before there was anything' could be a meaningless label.

Of course, even if you were 100% correct, and the universe started at the Big Bang, and was caused by something immaterial and timeless, your assignment of the label 'God' to that thing in no way justifies the leap to equating this thing with any of the Gods described by human religion.

If the context is 'the universe has a creator', then you still have a SHITLOAD of work to do to show that this creator still exists, or is able to interact with the universe today, or is in any sense 'intelligent', or 'caring', or has anything to do with such unrelated events as abiogenesis - in short, if you were able to prove the thing you are currently failing to prove, you still wouldn't have proved the existence of anything worthy of the name 'God'.

 

[bilby]

... the existence of a spaceless, timeless and immaterial creator takes care of abiogenesis.

There seem to be some major missing steps here. The assumption of a creator of the universe which initiated the Big Bang, in no way needs to have any influence on abiogenesis, which as far as we can tell, post-dates the Big Bang by billions of years, and requires nothing more than steadily more complex chemistry which eventually crosses whatever threshold we arbitrarily take to divide non-life from life.

Even if it were possible to demonstrate the need for a God (or even a mere 'creator') in order to start the universe, there would be no justification for the unsupported claim that the same entity (or any entity at all) is necessary for the emergence of life in that universe at some time long after the creation of that universe. That would be a completely different claim, requiring its own set of evidence and reason to support it.

This isn't a 'buy a universe, get living things free' deal.

 

[abaddon]

... the existence of a spaceless, timeless and immaterial creator takes care of abiogenesis.

There seem to be some major missing steps here...

True about the abiogenesis bit. But the questions Hermit's asking are intriguing ones.

I'm more interested in what the existence of God means after the alleged creation too.

Especially interesting to me is the "objective meaning" thing that remez mentioned. Is it a case of "fulfill your god-given purpose or be damned" if the god-thing were established as real?

I argue the other questions are more interesting than the cosmo argument itself, because the three prior discussions of this same topic already established that remez hasn't offered the reasoned position that he claims he has. Sooner or later it's reasonable to conclude that he cannot. Creationists get so repetitive about their hobbyhorses, as you know, when there are so many other adventures of mind that offer themselves...

Also, in all three prior discussions remez promised to eventually connect the creator-thingy with his God. A promise not yet fulfilled.

So, since the cosmological argument is extremely well-demonstrated to be, by its nature, a presumptuous conclusion looking for loaded premises, I personally request this discussion to proceed onward instead of cover the same shit that's already been covered in prior discussions of the KCA with remez.

 

[bilby]

... the existence of a spaceless, timeless and immaterial creator takes care of abiogenesis.

There seem to be some major missing steps here...

True about the abiogenesis bit. But the questions Hermit's asking are intriguing ones.

I'm more interested in what the existence of God means after the alleged creation too.

Especially interesting to me is the "objective meaning" thing that remez mentioned. Is it a case of "fulfill your god-given purpose or be damned" if the god-thing were established as real?

I argue the other questions are more interesting than the cosmo argument itself, because the three prior discussions of this same topic already established that remez hasn't offered the reasoned position that he claims he has. Sooner or later it's reasonable to conclude that he cannot. Creationists get so repetitive about their hobbyhorses, as you know, when there are so many other adventures of mind that offer themselves...

Also, in all three prior discussions remez promised to eventually connect the creator-thingy with his God. A promise not yet fulfilled.

So, since the cosmological argument is extremely well-demonstrated to be, by its nature, a presumptuous conclusion looking for loaded premises, I personally request this discussion to proceed onward instead of cover the same shit that's already been covered in prior discussions of the KCA with remez.

Fair enough; I am certainly interested to hear how the existence of a creator leads to any requirement to dance to its tune - or even to presume that it has a tune it would wish us to dance along with in the first place.

 

[Juma]

My response directly indicated that God’s purpose would be our objective meaning of life by overt default. How could there be another if we were created by God?

Why would it?
You just assert that it is but I cannot see any reason why it should.

How are we supposed to know this gods purpose?

 

[bilby]

If I cut up a coke can and use the pieces for shims, is that a sinful act, because their purpose (as defined by their creator) was to enclose a sugary carbonated beverage?

If I use a storage jar for rolled oats, is that a sin, because the designer intended it for coffee granules?

Is there, in fact, ANY instance where the maker or designer of an object is expected and accepted as the sole arbiter of the object's purpose, after ownership of the object has passed to another? Or is the creator still our owner - and we merely slaves? If we are slaves, is it not morally obligatory that we rebel?

If God doesn't own us, then his purpose is not something we need consider. If he does own us, then we have both the right and the duty to rebel, as do all slaves.

 

[Jason the Rationalist]

Where did that come from? If that was in reference to my reply to Hermit, then your question does not rationally reflect the context that Hermit laid out.

This was where WE left off…………….

Seriously show me a viable cosmological model.

Jason is it Rational to abandon your burden of proof here and start raising non sequiturs from elsewhere?
Be fair.
I’m still waiting for a viable cosmological model that infers that the universe is both finite and eternal.
Your engagement here seems insincere.

I'm trying to understand how one can argue that god can support an argument for the creation of the universe. As soon as you start involving elements that have not been demonstrated to exist in their own right it makes it more difficult to make the case, not less. I've yet to read an argument based on a prime mover that I find persuasive. I don't see how invoking a prime mover - which somehow brought itself into existence - is a more viable option than the possibility of the universe always having been in existence. If your god can bring itself into existence then why, equally, could the universe not just have happened? What are the chances? The universe exists - check. Variants on a god exists - question mark. The universe brought itself into existence - question mark. Variants on a god brought the universe into existence - question mark. If you wish to push the prime mover argument you need to be able to argue that the chance of some god existing AND having the ability to bring the universe into existence is greater than the chance of the universe bringing itself into existence or having always existed. I don't think the Kalam Cosmological Argument or any variation on the prime mover argument is a viable cosmological model. I think a more viable model is one that doesn't call on a prime mover, for example the universe has always existed in one form or another and the form currently in existence is the one that we are experiencing. Now you could easily turn around and say that you regard the prime mover argument as more viable but yours depends on something else - that cannot be in any way demonstrated to exist - to bring the universe into existence.

What a peculiar thing to say about sincerity. Once you start down that road a miserable cul-de-sac awaits.

Be fair? Just go ahead and believe the prime mover argument do you mean? Why would I do that when the flaw has been pointed out (that it calls on that for which no evidence exists). The universe, if one wishes to regard it as evidence is evidence for itself. Nothing currently points at some self-creating power as having pre-existed and then bringing the universe itself into existence. Still believers are playing the "Aw, go on" card. Or the "you are doomed" card. Or the "I didn't suddenly arrive at this conclusion, I built it up through a great deal of careful and considered thinking" card or any of a thousand other cards at their disposal. The KLM is nothing more than an attempt to smuggle religion in through the backdoor.

 

[blastula]

more empty assertionzzzzzzz.

Your statement itself is an empty assertion to me. So properly I need to ask what do you mean by that? Remember an assertion is a statement about saying. An assumption is an statement about thinking. My assertion was not an assumption. My assertion was an inference that the universe began to exist based on the assumption of the SBBM.

Your vaunted "inference" is doing a lot of work. It amounts to a good example of "theists sort of think that believing in god makes god real."

 

[Jason the Rationalist]

I'm proposing my own "viable" cosmological model, in the same way that the KLM is a "viable" cosmological model. A squirrel-like autobot decided last week to make a roast dinner. Instead of diverting the vapours into his extractor unit he filled a bag with them, said some magic words and through some amazing special effects and sleight of hand brought the universe into being, sliding the other one that we were familiar with into a winged hippopotamus that made mewing noises, laid several cuboid eggs and launched a successful career in timeshare. All evidence of these events was removed by an immaterial candy-floss machine that cuckooed three times and ejected itself into space at three trillion times the speed of sound, vanishing just beond Basngstoke. None of this, I repeat none of this, left ANY evidence of any kind behind....other than the universe.

Remez, please explain why the KLM is more viable than mine.

 

[James Brown]

I don't know what is making the noises in my attic, but I don't believe that it is a ghost.

 

[Elixir]

God is real.... again.

Proof:



Nothing is more real than the figments of theist imaginations.
Figments rule!

 

[bilby]

I don't know what is making the noises in my attic, but I don't believe that it is a ghost.

If you see urine stains soaking through the ceiling, it's probably possums.

Or an incontinent ghost.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If I cut up a coke can and use the pieces for shims, is that a sinful act, because their purpose (as defined by their creator) was to enclose a sugary carbonated beverage?

If I use a storage jar for rolled oats, is that a sin, because the designer intended it for coffee granules?

Is there, in fact, ANY instance where the maker or designer of an object is expected and accepted as the sole arbiter of the object's purpose, after ownership of the object has passed to another? Or is the creator still our owner - and we merely slaves? If we are slaves, is it not morally obligatory that we rebel?

If God doesn't own us, then his purpose is not something we need consider. If he does own us, then we have both the right and the duty to rebel, as do all slaves.

Ya, I've always wondered that as well.

If God decides that his purpose for me is to be a loving father and neighbour who helps build up my community, but I decide instead to lead a monastic existence helping to treat AIDS victims in Tanzania, do I go to Hell for my decision to not follow the purpose which God set out for me?

Did he design my brain in such a way that I am physically unable to be happy or content in anything other than suburban family life, so straying from this purpose necessarily leads to heartache and despair?

The whole "God's purpose" thing just doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[Elixir]

If I cut up a coke can and use the pieces for shims, is that a sinful act, because their purpose (as defined by their creator) was to enclose a sugary carbonated beverage?

If I use a storage jar for rolled oats, is that a sin, because the designer intended it for coffee granules?

Those examples are called substance abuse.

 

[remez]

No need to remind me. It's what I wrote in the first post (#58) that I addressed to you: "OK, let's accept for the sake of the argument that the universe (all space, matter, time and energy) began to exist from something that was spaceless, timeless and immaterial.

I'm sorry for that. But as you can imagine I'm being challenged by other readers regarding my responses with you that clearly needed that reminder. With you I'll do my best not to do it again.

But in order to begin address the all of your seemingly sincere concerns, you need to understand something major that is implicated in that concession. You and the universe did not have to be created. That implies that a personal eternal creator had a choice to create. Which means he had a reason/purpose to create you and the universe. Thus the objective purpose and meaning for our lives must logically be the reason he had to create us. Not some subjective purpose of our own creation, but actually the purpose he had for creating us. Good so far?

Note my questions above carefully. Because hidden in the implications of your concession is the answer to what is the purpose and meaning for this live. Agree or disagree?

Now I'll quickly throw in another implication here as well. You are possibly questioning well there are so many God's that we have to choose from.....so which one and which purpose? Still seems pretty subjective right? Not really. Only theism fits the description of the concession. Atheism for sure is out. All the other polytheistic God's are part of the universe, so rationally only theism fits the concession. Thus all that remains in the realm of possibility are the Abrahamic Theisms. Put very simply "for now" they pretty much share the same purpose for life. To know God and make him known. Is this implication clear so far?

I am asking about any and all of what you mentioned. Assuming the existence of a spaceless, timeless and immaterial creator of everything, how does that affect our understanding of the universe?

Tricky question. Not much at all in the operational sciences and quite a bit as you can reason in the origin sciences.

Since God now exists we primarily need to examine his revelation to us to determine his relationship to us and the rest of his creation. There are two kinds revelation, general and special. I'll spare you the long lecture about them and assume you already know what they are and how they relate to one another.

I'm focusing this part of my response on the physical universe (general revelation => natural theology) and scientific understanding. How does it affect our scientific search to understand it in the hard sciences? I would reason not much. The issues of origin would be settled. Possibly some armed with and understanding of God's nature would directly relate to a certain phenomenon we observe in his creation; or what we from our viewpoint often call nature. But understanding how it works scientifically would still need to move on. Biblically (special revelation) we were given charge to understand and harness his creation/nature. We were admonished to examine nature to see his wondrous works and thereby know him. All of the major sciences would still be in business, even though God exists.

So, here is your mission, should you choose to accept it: Assuming the existence of a spaceless, timeless and immaterial creator of everything, how does that affect our understanding of the universe? How can we discover how we should then live our lives? It's a repeat of what I asked in post #58, but put in other words in the hope that you will understand the question

How does it affect our understanding of the universe? That would depend on what you are trying to understand.
How should you then live your life? That freely depends on your understanding of God. If God exists, wouldn't that truth be somewhat of compelling influence?

 

[remez]

That it is past eternal.

That inference is based on what?

The same thing as yours - it's one of the equally supported possible interpretations of what we can observe - which is that the universe existed at the Planck time, and that we cannot know what happened before that time.

Equally supported? By what twisted sense of probability are you asserting that. You seem to be reasoning that you have a 50-50 chance of winning the lottery because either you will win or you won't. Way too simplistic. Follow the evidence.
Also….
Your assertion that "we cannot know" is a limited position of epistemology that limits knowledge to only scientific knowledge and thus abandons all reason. It is also self-refuting.

Main point………..you stand opposed to most prominent inference.
Again I’m not saying that the SBBM infers with absolute certainty that the universe began to exist. But if you follow the evidence the SBBM far more reasonably points to a universe with an absolute beginning as opposed to one that is eternal or illogically created itself.

It is not unreasonable to concur with Hawkings that time began… http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html or with Vilenkin that the universe is not past eternal…

By now, there’s scientific consensus that our universe exploded into existence almost 14 billion years ago in an event known as the Big Bang. But that theory raises more questions about the universe’s origins than it answers, including the most basic one: what happened before the Big Bang? Some cosmologists have argued that a universe could have no beginning, but simply always was.
In 2003, Tufts cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin and his colleagues, Arvind Borde, now a senior professor of mathematics at Long Island University, and Alan Guth, a professor of physics at MIT, proved a mathematical theorem showing that, under very general assumptions, the universe must, in fact, have had a beginning.

http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

I’m not saying that either of these great cosmologists, also atheists, claim that the universe began with absolute certainty, but even they seem to reason so. Last I knew, both are engaged with research that is more along the lines of self-creation, almost surrendering to the notion that from the evidence we have now the universe began to exist. Further the illogical notion of self-creation is in no way more plausible then what we can reasonably predict from what we know now.

The SBBM in regards to the beginning of the universe far more reasonably predicts that the universe had an absolute beginning. Hawking and Krauss, both atheists, each have written a book purporting their solutions as to how the universe began, thereby concluding it began.
There is no viable model that substantiates a universe with an eternal past.

I can see why you WANT the universe to have started, because you think that if it did, your beliefs are better supported. But that's not a reason for anyone other than you to accept without evidence that it did.

My position is one of reason supported by the EVIDENCE of the SBBM. Your position is the one of want, standing opposed to reason and wanting of evidence.

You have no more evidence than I do.

My evidence….
I agree with you that the theory can only physically extend our scientific knowledge of the expansion back to Planck. But examining that 13.7 billion year extension overwhelming leads to a prediction that the universe began to exist. The BGV also adds to that prediction by asserting that any universe which is on average expanding cannot be past eternal. It is that simple.

Here is another way to consider the power of that inference.

We have approximately 8,020,300,637,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Planck seconds of time pointing back towards a beginning and ... only ...one... single ...solitary Planck second that cannot absolutely confirm that beginning.
Plus.......
the added overwhelming evidence of the BGV.

So it is far far far far far far far far ... more plausible (to say the least) that the universe had a absolute beginning as compared to it being eternal.

Serious Question. Please...............
Tell me what would you expect the evidence to look like......If the entire universe actually began to exist at that Planck second?
and.............
How would that evidence look any different from what we actually have right now?

It describes everything that has ever been observed. I assert not that it must apply before the Planck time - only that it is not unreasonable to imagine that it might.

Again the odds against that “might” are
8,020,300,637,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 To 1.
Even Llyod Christmas had a better shot than that.

So technically you have an absurd long shot to avoid the inference. Yet you seem to be asserting it’s 50/50.

Of course, even if you were 100% correct, and the universe started at the Big Bang, and was caused by something immaterial and timeless, your assignment of the label 'God' to that thing in no way justifies the leap to equating this thing with any of the Gods described by human religion.

What was the context of this thread?
Read my last post to Hermit to address your polytheistic concerns.

If the context is 'the universe has a creator', then you still have a SHITLOAD of work to do to show that this creator still exists, or is able to interact with the universe today, or is in any sense 'intelligent', or 'caring', or has anything to do with such unrelated events as abiogenesis - in short, if you were able to prove the thing you are currently failing to prove, you still wouldn't have proved the existence of anything worthy of the name 'God'.

Not there yet and besides much of what you asserted there is self-contradictory.
No worries.

 

[remez]

Also, in all three prior discussions remez promised to eventually connect the creator-thingy with his God. A promise not yet fulfilled.

I have presented an inferential trail that leads to precisely that conclusion in one or more of those threads. I think you were in with me. I think I gave it to BH last time. Again this is not an exhaustive map by any means. LCA, KCA, FTA, MA and the RA. We always get off the trail somewhere around the KCA or FTA. This trail was by no means cut by me. If you want a map to the whole trail just listen to any WLC debate that deals with the topic of “God’s Existence”. I’m just a trail guide that attempts to keep the trail clear of bad philosophy.

 

[remez]

I don't see how invoking a prime mover - which somehow brought itself into existence - is a more viable option than the possibility of the universe always having been in existence.

God did not bring himself into existence, he is eternal. You obviously understand the notion, because you are inferring the same reason by asserting the universe has and eternal past. The problem you have is that the universe most plausibly has a beginning.

If you wish to push the prime mover argument you need to be able to argue that the chance of some god existing AND having the ability to bring the universe into existence is greater than the chance of the universe bringing itself into existence or having always existed.

Note you did not account for an eternal God, only and eternal universe. So as I see it science most plausibly supports the inference that the universe is not past eternal. For over two thousand years both the universe and the biblical God have shared equal notion of an eternal past. Recently the universe has lost its grip on that notion.

I don't think the Kalam Cosmological Argument or any variation on the prime mover argument is a viable cosmological model.

You‘re conflating argument and model. The second premise of the KCA is supported by the SBBM. I’m asking you for a cosmological model more viable than the SBBM that supports your assertion that the universe is both finite and infinite. I’ve supported my position. You have yet to offer any support for yours. And your “MODEL” in post 90 misses the mark, I’ll deal with that at the end of this reply.

I think a more viable model is one that doesn't call on a prime mover, for example the universe has always existed in one form or another and the form currently in existence is the one that we are experiencing.

Me too. But the KCA is not a model. The model I was refering to is the SBBM, and it does not infer God.

Now you could easily turn around and say that you regard the prime mover argument as more viable but yours depends on something else - that cannot be in any way demonstrated to exist - to bring the universe into existence.

Again you are conflating argument and model. My argument is supported by the SBBM. Give me a more viable model and I’ll consider it. I’m not “just saying”, I’m reasoning (KCA). You are the one “just saying” that the universe is both finite and infinite without any model to support it.

The universe, if one wishes to regard it as evidence is evidence for itself. Nothing currently points at some self-creating power as having pre-existed and then bringing the universe itself into existence.

Wishes have nothing to do with it. Again I, nor the argument, are pointing to a self-creating God. If you are going to debate this topic you should do some research. You are way off base in regards to what the argument positions.

Still believers are playing the "Aw, go on" card. Or the "you are doomed" card. Or the "I didn't suddenly arrive at this conclusion, I built it up through a great deal of careful and considered thinking" card or any of a thousand other cards at their disposal.

I have done nothing of the sort. Ad hominin attacks indicate your failure here.

The KLM is nothing more than an attempt to smuggle religion in through the backdoor.

I’m not sure what you are actually referring to when you assert KLM. I’m guessing that you meant the KCA. Anyway until you present such a case your words are only pretext.

Post 90 here……………

I'm proposing my own "viable" cosmological model, in the same way that the KLM is a "viable" cosmological model. A squirrel-like autobot decided last week to make a roast dinner. Instead of diverting the vapours into his extractor unit he filled a bag with them, said some magic words and through some amazing special effects and sleight of hand brought the universe into being, sliding the other one that we were familiar with into a winged hippopotamus that made mewing noises, laid several cuboid eggs and launched a successful career in timeshare. All evidence of these events was removed by an immaterial candy-floss machine that cuckooed three times and ejected itself into space at three trillion times the speed of sound, vanishing just beond Basngstoke. None of this, I repeat none of this, left ANY evidence of any kind behind....other than the universe.

Remez, please explain why the KLM is more viable than mine.

Seriously you have no idea what you're mocking about. My model is the SBBM.

Again you are making a fool of yourself by conflating the model (SBBM) and argument (KCA). My argument (KCA) is supported by the Standard Big Bang MODEL. Yes the “M” stands for MODEL not mocking. Guess what the “A” stands for in KCA? Thus your stupid squirrel cosmological MODEL is mocking the SBBM not the KCA. Good Luck with that.

 

[Learner]

If God doesn't own us, then his purpose is not something we need consider. If he does own us, then we have both the right and the duty to rebel, as do all slaves.

If you were to take that notion by rebelling against God i.e. the notion of freeing ones self from the laws of God (thieist POV).

It certainly does seem ironic when men become slaves ... of other men!