No, that was your claim, made in error I’m sure.
If God creates “everything”, then He creates Himself, since He is not nothing. God creates everything except Himself. You left out the very important qualifier at the end.
Religious fundamentalists and atheist fundamentalists seem to have a shared mindset, which, as you rightly point out, makes them more alike than different. Hence, their arguments are also often identical - sometimes with different outcomes due to different premises, but also sometimes with the exact same outcome. An example of the latter would be that both camps insist on a literal interpretation of Scripture, while accusing those who do not of cherry picking.
No. One side admits God, the other side admits the multiverse, which lacks a great many of the properties of God.
Given the amount of straw men, I doubt it…
Catholics know this already.
And who created the multiverse?
What is my agenda?
If I left loose bicycle parts in some turbulent water for a billion years, it would self assemble? I don’t understand.
I am not Catholic. You were making assumptions about your readership, and those assumptions were incorrect. Your error is a common one. God does not create everything because God is not created.
I don’t know, since I wasn’t there and I can find no mention of any multiverse in Jewish, Christian or Buddhist scriptures.
Bicycle parts are too large. Try leaving some simple organic molecules lying around instead.
The insistence of a literal interpretation of scripture by atheists such as Sam Harris or Dawkins is particularly disconcerting because both of these men claim that unlike science, religion never corrects itself or comes to new understanding (which is false) while at the same time claiming that we cherry pick our understanding of scripture over time as far as interpretation and or emphasis on some aspects over others. This approach by the new atheists (and endless fundamentalist Christians also) is just plain dishonest and frankly very frustrating-- it is a tactic to win a debate-- rather than an attempt to come to some kind of accurate understanding.
I don’t agree. The Bible is a closed book. That is, it has been examined very closely. Sacred Scripture is also called the Word of the Lord. Winning or losing is not the goal - only truth. I see this debate brought up here endlessly. Regarding the Bible, the Church clarifies. It looks at new social and scientific events and discoveries through the light of Scripture.
I don’t think scholarly research needs to be cited. I came independently to the same conclusions as Rin; it is plain to see for those able to see it. The only thing about Rin’s statement that I might have some reservations about: I am not sure if I have atheists see become fundamentalist believers. Yet I agree with him on the other way around: fundamentalist believers, when they become atheists, usually become atheists of the fundamentalist kind.
You mean science can only deal with the physical world. Materialism is a worldview, the physical world is a fact of God’s creation. That some or even many scientists are materialists is a different matter, certainly different from science itself.
Do you just like to argue? By saying GOD created the universe out of nothing, it’s understood that God was there and is real. I hate to spell everything out…takes too much time!
Multiverse!!
Boy am I glad God inspired His Biblical writers with words we all understand.I learned in 1st or 2nd grade , God always was, always is & always will be!
No. I was merely pointing out that the original question was skewed. Theists were allowed a head start, with nothing and God. Atheists were expected to start with pure nothing. In order to remedy the imbalance, I added the multiverse to the atheist side. That makes for a much fairer discussion.
By saying that the current universe arose from the multiverse it is understood that the multiverse was there and is real.