Art my friend..the original question doesn't ask about the creation of the universe..it asks a logic question and ask for a rational response for your thoughts ..not "google cut and paste"

I say read my series on creation Vs. evolution......pretty much answers it all.

all you have to do is give a yes or no answer to the original logical question.. if the answer is no then simply give a rational expanation as to why you chose no ...so feralcatlady it's really no reason for me to read your "google cut and paste" mini series

wrong again funches it's all mine baby....no copy and paste in the whole series.....so try again......And if you would like to read my views by all means do so....Im not going to re-type it....

ok feralcatlady ..don't re-type it just answer the blooming original question ...

I'm so tempted to just answer you.....but hey I'm not going to....your making impossible for everyone else....so go read the series you might actually learn something.....

come on feralcatlady quit jerking around ..I mean how many sane people expect someone to go read a mini-series in another thread instead of just answering the topic of the thread in question ...

the original question is not about how the universe was created ..maybe I will start a thread an then answer that question ...until then try to stick to the topic

'feral',

Didn't you once erroneously call me an 'arrogant ass'?!?!?

I would watch it if I were you!!! You're true nature is splashing all over the kitchen floor, and smells of disgusting arrogance.

For you to even suggest that someone might learn something out of those delusional threads, other than the fact that you really have misplaced your keys, is the epitomy of arrogance. You truly have no idea!!!

Just thought you might appreciate my guiding counsel, such that, in the future, you will avoid showing this 'arrogant ass' attitude of yours for the whole world to see.




:)

If the shoe fits

according to believers logic, God had to have created the universe because the universe couldn't have popped out of nothingness and create itself .....so therefore do the same logic apply to the creator

Genesis 1:1

The earth was a formless and void......and no does not apply to creator as he was and is and always will BE.

And to bad you didn't go look at series you actually could of learned alot.

the earth was formless and void? ..come on Feralcatlady how would anyone know that ..sounds like the beginning of Lord of the Rings or Dune ..well something on the sci-fi channel

Are you new.......I know what I know what I know what I know.
and your a babbling idiot looser who has not proved one thing in any thread you have done or participated in.

WOW, funches, who created the creator, excellent, man!!!!! Thumbs up!

This reminds me of "Horton hears a Who" do you remember that cartoon as a kid??? Horton hears a people talking to him on a speck of dust, which turns out to be their world. He is tortured by his people for hearing the whos, they had to build a giant horn to project their voices out so others besides Horton could here them to save him and themselves.

Ok so you think I am a dork but when I saw this as a kid it opened my eyes to the concept of other worlds and how different they could be from what we consider real or normal etc.....also if there could be a world on a speck of dust (us) the universe outside of us in endless, so large we cannot understand.

Okay so now I am an idiot but I had fun remembering anyway

god was not created. he just IS. we as human's cannot wrap our minds around something like that. i feel if a god exists, which i believe he does, he could easily create us without that understanding. that is why we are us, and god is god.

i dont think that's a cop-out. i feel its a perfectly logical way of looking at it. IF god exists, he created the rules. the universe, heaven, earth, etc, is way too huge for our tiny humans minds to ever grasp and we werent meant to.

I told you before, and feel it would useful to remind you again, ... in simpler terms :

THE NAME CALLING AND INSULTING OF OTHERS YOU INDULGE IN,
IS A PERFECT REFLECTION OF HOW YOU COME ACROSS YOURSELF IN A LOT OF THESE POSTS AND THREADS!!!

(the self-reflective words you wrote before this were: 'if the shoe fits?!?!? Trust me feral, the shoe fits you!!!0

well feralcatlady.. I proved you are delusional ....er..well to be fair you proved that yourself

I'm sorry if I've missed any responses that cover the following, but I didn't see anything from my preliminary glance through the posts in this thread.

First, I don't think anyone is afraid to comment on this topic. Not everyone is well-versed in philosophy or capable of such thought. That's not a criticism, but merely a fact. Few people will be able to respond to your question in any meaningful way because the concept requires a deep understanding of philosophy and mathematics/physics.

Second, the argument is often erroneously stated as "everything that exists must have a cause." The actual concept is, "everything that _begins_ to exist must have a cause." The distinction may seem trite, but it's actually rather important.

The importance of this law of causation is thus: If the universe has no beginning, then there is no absolute requirement that there were a creator. If, however, the universe has a apex of origin (or a singularity, as it is known), then there must be an external source. The significance is twofold, of course, in that a created universe can have a creator (e.g., God) that has no beginning — and the law of causation does not state that an entity with no beginning necessitates a cause.

Stephen Hawking has worked out a theoretical mathematical model that describes our universe as having no singularity — in essence (and overly simplified), a closed loop. However, his equations are entirely theoretical and have not yet been proven with real data. Some claim that this disproves his theory, but what it truly proves is that our understanding of the universe is considerably deficient and that the very nature of existence eludes us. This topic is really the tip of the iceberg, and our knowledge of the universe hinges largely on the question of origin (or lack thereof).

The argument is flawed, however, when people take a rather large leap from the fact of our ignorance to assertions of fact. In particular, if there is a singularity, many people assume that God has been vindicated and that such is proof of God's existence. That's a premature conclusion, however. Other possibilities exist, including a death of one universe giving life to ours. I'm not suggesting that such a scenario is the reality, and to jump to that conclusion would be irresponsible, just as jumping to the conclusion of God as the source would be irresponsible. There simply is no evidence to support any particular theory without considerably greater knowledge.

Another flaw exists, however, in that people assume that the law of causation implies that an entity with no beginning is possible. That isn't what it says. In fact, it doesn't actually deal with any such topic. The statement is limited to what we know — items that began to exist — and what we can conclude from that knowledge. We do not have knowledge, directly or indirectly, of anything that never began to exist, so we don't know if such is even possible.

I am in no way qualified to discuss the mathematical theories behind what I've put forth. There are frustratingly few people in the world who understand that level of mathematics, and I'm certainly not among them. I understand the overarching theory, but even 20 years of intense mathematical study wouldn't bring me anywhere close to the level of understanding of which Hawking and his colleagues are capable. For any of us here to claim that we "know" much of anything beyond the details of our day-to-day lives is ridiculous.

Many will say that I'm being hypocritical because I label myself as an atheist, a view that clearly deals in absolutes. My atheism, however, deals with a very specific contradiction, as I see it, that precludes the existence of a man-conceived God (or gods), and I believe that there is nothing in any realm of existence that is without a rational, scientific answer. These topics get into a much longer conversation (or series of conversations) than I'm willing to begin here, but my point is this: I don't know what secrets the universe holds, or how many other universes exist or what foreign form they may take. To my insignificant mind, the wonders of all existence — no matter how scientifically logical and reasonable — would seem so magnificent that I'd be incapable of seeing them in any way except as metaphysical. Intellectually, I would understand that it's my own limitations that make it seem like a metaphysical, other-worldly existence. I would be tremendously arrogant to think that just because I don't understand how something is possible or how it works that it necessarily involves a metaphysical explanation.

I guess the actual point of my rant is to bring about a certain amount of tolerance in regard to these religious topics. Discourse is good and healthy and can bring us to deeper understanding, but many people don't discuss issues so much as debate with the goal of convincing others that they are right and others are wrong. None of us knows that what we believe is true, though the devoutness of faith of each person should not be questioned. Why do we continue to ask hostile questions, or present topics that state there are "questions that believers are afraid to answer?"

If any among us has every answer on ever topic, please stand up; I'm sure your knowledge will be in great demand. However, I'll be taking a seat.