KnownUnknown:


What first human?
What evidence of creations?
Point out any natural thing that’s in the process of being “created”.

Maybe you have any in the process of being created. We can all see the trees, humans and many more are creations. So what are you saying?

LordReed:


LoLz. Nice attempt to shift the burden of proof to me. You are the one making the claim that they are evidence of a creation so it is up to you to supply the proof that they are.

Natural creations that include mountains, ecosystems, and even living organisms; Are this not evidence of creation to you? Or Are these not natural creations?

You said creation didn't exist! Are you kidding yourself or someone else?

KnownUnknown:


The “laws” of nature are descriptive not prescriptive. They are not akin to legal law formulated by humans. The “laws of nature” are descriptions of how the world functions not how it’s designed to function. That’s why the laws of physics “breakdown” at the quantum level.

Please explain to me the existence of humans. Do not deviate from the op position.

Wilgrea7:

i lack the belief in a god... so i guess yeah

OK!

gisevak:


Natural creations that include mountains, ecosystems, and even living organisms; Are this not evidence of creation to you? Or Are these not natural creations?

You said creation didn't exist! Are you kidding yourself or someone else?

Where did I say "creation didn't exist"?

No they are not evidence of creation since we know how they formed and there was no "creator" involved.

Meanwhile you are yet to show how nature and it's laws are evidence of a creation.

gisevak:

Is Earth nature?

You mean is the Earth natural. Sure, it is.

LordReed:


You mean is the Earth natural. Sure, it is.

Is the Earth a natural creation?

gisevak:

Is the Earth a natural creation?

What does "natural creation" mean?

LordReed:


Where did I say "creation didn't exist"?

No they are not evidence of creation since we know how they formed and there was no "creator" involved.

Meanwhile you are yet to show how nature and it's laws are evidence of a creation.

Evidence refers to information, facts, data, or observations that support or justify a claim. So, by observation, we can say nature is evidence of creation. What is your definition of evidence?

LordReed:


What does "natural creation" mean?

"Natural creation" typically refers to the process by which entities, or others come into existence through natural means.

gisevak:


Evidence refers to information, facts, data, or observations that support or justify a claim. So, by observation, we can say nature is evidence of creation. What is your definition of evidence?

Still no. Our observations do not lend credence to the notion that nature was created. What our observations reveal is natural things in this universe come about by natural processes, not by the actions of a "creator".

Evidence in addition to what you have said needs to show a claim to be true.

gisevak:

"Natural creation" typically refers to the process by which entities, or others come into existence through natural means.

If we are only focused on natural means then yes according to your definition the Earth is a "natural creation".

LordReed:


Still no. Our observations do not lend credence to the notion that nature was created. What our observations reveal is natural things in this universe come about by natural processes, not by the actions of a "creator".

Evidence in addition to what you have said needs to show a claim to be true.

A simple analogy is this: I saw a mansion at a place. And I couldn't see the builder. Does it just make sense to say there is no builder? Is it logical to conclude that the builder of such a mansion doesn't exist? What cause the natural process?

LordReed:


If we are only focused on natural means then yes according to your definition the Earth is a "natural creation".

See, I do not claim certainty about nonexistence of a creator or creators because i don't have enough facts to rejects its existence. Can you provide provide that fact?

gisevak:

See, I do not claim certainty about nonexistence of a creator or creators because i don't have enough facts to rejects its existence. Can you provide provide that fact?

Dude you are the one making the claim, you need to show how nature and it's laws are evidence for a creation. You can't switch it and be asking me.

LordReed:


Dude you are the one making the claim, you need to show how nature and it's laws are evidence for a creation. You can't switch it and be asking me.

Simple.
Because every reasonable person knows that Laws don't make themselves and they are made by A Creator who has set how He wants His creation to be.

Everyone knows that!

gisevak:


A simple analogy is this: I saw a mansion at a place. And I couldn't see the builder. Does it just make sense to say there is no builder? Is it logical to conclude that the builder of such a mansion doesn't exist? What cause the natural process?

I know mansions have human builders because I have observed that and the evidence abounds therefore it is mundane to assume that any mansion I see was built by a human. However if the claim is there is a specific human who built this mansion or all mansions then we need evidence to substantiate such a claim. You have provided no evidence that some creator did anything and since we have not observed any creators creating any universes then the claim is not mundane enough to be assumed. You can't logic things into existence.

Natural processes are caused by the interplay between matter and energy.

LordReed:


Dude you are the one making the claim, you need to show how nature and it's laws are evidence for a creation. You can't switch it and be asking me.

Which evidence are you looking for while we see natural creations such as trees and many more? You are a creation!

LordReed:


I know mansions have human builders because I have observed that and the evidence abounds therefore it is mundane to assume that any mansion I see was built by a human. However if the claim is there is a specific human who built this mansion or all mansions then we need evidence to substantiate such a claim. You have provided no evidence that some creator did anything and since we have not observed any creators creating any universes then the claim is not mundane enough to be assumed. You can't logic things into existence.

Natural processes are caused by the interplay between matter and energy.

What proof do you have for the bolded?

LordReed:

...
Natural processes are caused by the interplay between matter and energy.

Yeah! And matter and so called "energy" are things which create themselves right?

Wilgrea7:
.In regard to the origin of consciousness, cosmic evolution and so on, the anticlimactic answer is simply that we don't know.. and we don't claim to.

These are questions no one quite knows the answer to yet. While people have tried to plug several things like god/gods into the equation, they've failed to provide any evidence of such.

And although we search for the answers to these questions, we simply haven't found them yet.. so we simply don't know

Are you part of that 'WE'?

Just say you're waiting for your atheist gods to tell you what to believe on that

Wilgrea7:
.

In regard to the origin of consciousness, cosmic evolution and so on, the anticlimactic answer is simply that we don't know.. and we don't claim to.

These are questions no one quite knows the answer to yet. While people have tried to plug several things like god/gods into the equation, they've failed to provide any evidence of such.

And although we search for the answers to these questions, we simply haven't found them yet.. so we simply don't know

God is consciousness itself...


Not a man or human being..
God is consciousness...

sonmvayina:


God is consciousness itself...


Not a man or human being..
God is consciousness...

You need 5 sense organs to be conscious.
When you are conscious you know. When you are not conscious you know, who is the "you" that knows it.
Have you tried sub-conscious/unconscious, maybe look up carl jung, consciousness is just a little bit of the iceberg.

gisevak:

What proof do you have for the bolded?

Every scientific principle and observation you can think of.

Maynman:

You need 5 sense organs to be conscious.
When you are conscious you know. When you are not conscious you know, who is the "you" that knows it.
Have you tried sub-conscious/unconscious, maybe look up carl jung, consciousness is just a little bit of the iceberg.

Consciousness is the main deal....

Maynman:

You need 5 sense organs to be conscious.
When you are conscious you know. When you are not conscious you know, who is the "you" that knows it.
Have you tried sub-conscious/unconscious, maybe look up carl jung, consciousness is just a little bit of the iceberg.

Can you explain the picture you copied and pasted?

sonmvayina:


Consciousness is the main deal....

Consciousness is the least.
You cannot be conscious of what you don't know.

sonmvayina:


Can you explain the picture you copied and pasted?

You are not just conscious, you know that you are conscious.
Look up carl jung for better explanation.

LordReed:


Every scientific principle and observation you can think of.

Is this proof or a joke? Is this a proof of what causes the natural process? So all scientific principles, according to you, such as Isaac Newton's first law of motion, started the natural process.

gisevak:

Is this proof or a joke? Is this a proof of what causes the natural process? So all scientific principles, according to you, such as Isaac Newton's first law of motion, started the natural process.

You asked me what causes natural processes, I said interaction of energy and matter. You then ask what proof I have of that and I responded with every scientific principle and observation. I never said scientific principles and observation are what cause natural processes rather they are proof that natural processes are a result of interaction between energy and matter. Get it?

gisevak:

Is this proof or a joke? Is this a proof of what causes the natural process? So all scientific principles, according to you, such as Isaac Newton's first law of motion, started the natural process.

Still waiting for you to show how nature is evidence for creation.

KnownUnknown:


What first human?
What evidence of creations?
Point out any natural thing that’s in the process of being “created”.

If you work into a production facility that is fully automated, observe as raw materials are processed and transformed to finished products, I am sure you would not walk away with the conclusion that the products are selfmade simply because no human facility operator is in sight.

Consider the earth, with all the energy and materials in it, as being on auto mode for procreation and reproduction.

Take a deeper look at various reproduction processes and the things involved.