Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
Yes, but WHY do you not accept an “uncaused cause” as being plausible, if you believe that the universe has always existed, since describing the universe that way is the very DEFINITION of an UNCAUSED CAUSE!?
How is that NOT a self-contradictory stance, Seek!?
But why must this uncaused cause be your specific idea of god?
Because it’s the ONLY (singular) idea of God that works! Once one actually USES that definition in practice, one (rather spontaneously) receives “private revelation” which, once checked against public revelation, is proof that God is uniquely described thus.
A god that hears prayers, sends down a son, feels insulted at your sexuality, prefers a certain race of people as his chosen people and orders you to wars?
God hears prayers because He is a set of persons who are interested in His creations who are persons.
God sent us God The Son of the Father because He wanted to show us how to be adoptive (adoptable?) sons of God the Father.
God isn’t insulted by anyone’s sexuality, but only by their actions which create a proliferation of sin in the world (which is the exact opposite of the reason we are in this world).
God doesn’t prefer any particular “race” of people, but He has chosen to reveal Himself to all of mankind through a single “injection point” (actually “injection line”). God’s People (or His “Chosen People”) are His “hypodermic syringe” for the infusion of divine revelation into the “body” of mankind.
God tells us it is wise to fight evil when the conditions are right to do so.
Current evidence seems to point to a super dense seed yes? For universe creation. I think that means that something initiated our universe. But to me the best answer is something very very simple and something very natural. Or some aliens that are fiddling around with universe creation. Or perhaps an elaborate computer simulation. The last two of which, which may be true seem implausible, unless evidence presents is self to support it.
None of your theories address the actual “start” of the process of existence.
You simply choose to say “beats me!” to the question of the beginning, because the obvious necessity of a creation (as per the Church) has utterly unacceptable consequences to you.
You’re left with a “faith” that it just “happened somehow”, instead of the singular possibility that it did happen, which IS still a matter of faith, of course, but it’s the only “article of faith” which actually answers the question on the table.
So, you choose the answer that DOESN’T answer the question, while we choose the answer that DOES answer the question.
How is your choice superior?