Science and the arguments for/against the existence of God. Cosmology and Cosmogony

[Truthseeker]

Actually, you in a way are close to how I describe the Baha'i view of Creation, the Divine world Matrix which exists infinitely with God is described as an event and eternally existing with God. The process are the universes that are Created over time.

You often use words in places that make no sense. The last sentence in the above quotation looks queer, like saying "Vision is the things that are seen" (here, vision is a particular kind of process).

[shunyadragon]

You often use words in places that make no sense. The last sentence in the above quotation looks queer, like saying "Vision is the things that are seen" (here, vision is a particular kind of process).

Clarify, how is vision comes into this context???? There is no reference in the above to the noun 'vision.' My use of Baha'i view' maybe, which in this context is the Baha'i viewpoint, or maybe 'as described in Baha'i scripture.' This could be worded as the 'Baha'i belief.' Your question is not clear. does the following definition help.

Source: https://www.google.com/#q=view+definition

view - 2. a particular way of considering or regarding something; an attitude or opinion.
"strong political views" synonyms: opinion, point of view, viewpoint, belief, judgment, thinking, notion, idea, conviction, persuasion, attitude, feeling, sentiment, concept, hypothesis, theory; stance, standpoint, philosophy, doctrine, dogma, approach, take.

© Copyright Original Source

[JimL]

It is illogical and unreasonable for you to put specific limits on how God Creates from the human perspective.

Shunya we are human, so what is illogical and unreasonable is for you to think that you can re-define creation in Godly terms.

Actually, you in a way are close to how I describe the Baha'i view of Creation, the Divine world Matrix which exists infinitely with God is described as an event and eternally existing with God.

No i am not close to your view at all shunya. In my view there is no divine world matrix or divine mind that creates universes out of it. From my perspective of existence, there is only the eternal natural substance which gives rise to all forms which are temporal with respect to themselves, but eternal with respect to their cause. In other words universes, however many there be, are not more than the changing of form within, and of, one and the same eternal substance. But you call the matrix, or eternal substance itself an event as if it itself was brought into existence while at the same time claiming it to be eternal. When i point out that perspective to be illogical, your reply is not to give a logical explanation as to how that could be, how the eternal substance or matrix if you like, can be both eternal in itself and an event, your reply is, 'so it is illogical from the human perspective, but God is beyond our logic so i don't have to make sense.' So by what reason should any thinking man buy that perspective, if not based on human logic?

The process are the universes that are Created over time.

Yes that would be the process, usually refered to as evolution.

Your issue appears to be the existence of a Divine World Matrix that exists eternally with God.

My issue is not that there exists an eternal world matrix aka the Cosmos, my issue is with your inexplicable claim that it is both eternal and created by a distinct and divine mind.

Actually in the scripture of the Judeo-Christian- Islamic world there was an existence with beings prior to the Creation of our physical existence Biblically.

Yes there was.

We have no scripture here that describes the Creation of this world as temporal or infinite.

No we don't, but i don't see that as a good reason to discard logic by claiming the Cosmos to be both eternal and created in order to fill the knowledge gap.

It is up to you to use the terminology you wish if you object to the use of the word Creation in terms in Baha'i scripture ie.

No, the meaning of the word "creation" is dependent upon context, but you can't bring into existence/create that which is eternal and you also can not define it as being one with the eternal as well as distinct from the eternal. At least not if you mean to be logically consistent.

God Maattscatutures [insert word or phrase of your choice] the First Eternal Great Cause of our eternal physical existence, and Creates the universes in an eternal Creative natural processes reflecting the attributes and desire of God.

No, we can not just make up words to mean whatever we want them to mean. If the Cosmos is eternal, just like the conceived notion of God, then it isn't created, if it is created then it isn't eternal.

Remember these are only words, not bricks to build walls. IF God exists, humans like us could hardly limit the nature of the divine worlds of God, whether one or infinite with human words.

Then why do you do just that?

This too much of a mechanistic view from the human perspective to have any real understanding of God's Creation, which we in reality do not know, ah . . . unless you know something the rest of don't. Doubly problematic sense you do not believe God exists in the first place.

Thats what you call irony shunya. I am not the one claiming to know what the rest of us don't know. You continuously go on about the inadeqaute human perspective about God and then, ironically, go on to define God. And why is it problematic that i don't believe in God?

Your picking frog hairs here on terminology. What knowledge do you have that the Divine world of God (including how it is described in the Bible) could only be created in the temporal sense. It is believed in the Biblical tradition that God Created everything, yet again beings and Divine world exist prior to the physical Creation,.

I have no knowledge of a divine world of God, or that such even exist, and neither do you.

[shunyadragon]

Shunya we are human, so what is illogical and unreasonable is for you to think that you can re-define creation in Godly terms.

Redefine??? How do you redefine anything that is unknown. I was simply describing what the Baha'i scripture describes the nature of God and Creation.

No i am not close to your view at all shunya. In my view there is no divine world matrix or divine mind that creates universes out of it. From my perspective of existence, there is only the eternal natural substance which gives rise to all forms which are temporal with respect to themselves, but eternal with respect to their cause. In other words universes, however many there be, are not more than the changing of form within, and of, one and the same eternal substance. But you call the matrix, or eternal substance itself an event as if it itself was brought into existence while at the same time claiming it to be eternal. When i point out that perspective to be illogical, your reply is not to give a logical explanation as to how that could be, how the eternal substance or matrix if you like, can be both eternal in itself and an event, your reply is, 'so it is illogical from the human perspective, but God is beyond our logic so i don't have to make sense.' So by what reason should any thinking man buy that perspective, if not based on human logic? [

Yes that would be the process, usually refered to as evolution.

My issue is not that there exists an eternal world matrix aka the Cosmos, my issue is with your inexplicable claim that it is both eternal and created by a distinct and divine mind.

Yes there was.

No we don't, but i don't see that as a good reason to discard logic by claiming the Cosmos to be both eternal and created in order to fill the knowledge gap.

No, the meaning of the word "creation" is dependent upon context, but you can't bring into existence/create that which is eternal and you also can not define it as being one with the eternal as well as distinct from the eternal. At least not if you mean to be logically consistent.

No, we can not just make up words to mean whatever we want them to mean. If the Cosmos is eternal, just like the conceived notion of God, then it isn't created, if it is created then it isn't eternal.

Then why do you do just that?

That's what you call irony shunya. I am not the one claiming to know what the rest of us don't know. You continuously go on about the inadeqaute human perspective about God and then, ironically, go on to define God. And . . .

Absolutely FALSE. I was simply describing the Baha'i view of the aspects of the nature of God and Creation. I in no way ever tried to define God. In the Baha'i view God is unknowable and apophatic in term of the human perspective. YOU are the one that trying to define what is possible or impossible concerning the nature of God.

Yes Jim, that is what is called irony.

why is it problematic that i don't believe in God?

Because you are the one trying to define what is possible or impossible concerning the nature of God, picking frog hairs over terminology, saying IF God exists giving only one scenario as to how God could possibly exists.

I have no knowledge of a divine world of God, or that such even exist, and neither do you.

I already agreed to that. What's your point? You seem to be insistent as to what is possible or impossible concerning the nature of God and Creation, not me.

Actually Jim I do not propose anything is impossible nor possible about the nature or the existence of God. I do consider it possible God does not exist, and I believe it is very, very unlikely the anthropomorphic God of the Bible exists as described, but beyond that I believe there are many possibilities..

[JimL]

Redefine??? How do you redefine anything that is unknown. I was simply describing what the Baha'i scripture describes the nature of God and Creation.

You do that by using illogic and claiming it to be okay because what you are describing is unknown. And just how can the Bahai scripture or anyone else describe the nature of that which is unknown and unknowable?

Absolutely FALSE. I was simply describing the Baha'i view of the aspects of the nature of God and Creation. I in no way ever tried to define God. In the Baha'i view God is unknowable and apophatic in term of the human perspective. YOU are the one that trying to define what is possible or impossible concerning the nature of God.

I do believe that describing the Bahai view of the nature of God, which afterall is your view, would be tantamount to trying todefine God.

Because you are the one trying to define what is possible or impossible concerning the nature of God, picking frog hairs over terminology, saying IF God exists giving only one scenario as to how God could possibly exists.

No I'm not, i'm just trying to make sense of your discription of God and creation, which in my opinion doesn't make sense. "the universe is both eternal and created" "the universe is a reflection of Gods attributes" etc etc.
What are Gods attributes, and how do you know this if the nature of God is unknowable?

I already agreed to that. What's your point? You seem to be insistent as to what is possible or impossible concerning the nature of God and Creation, not me.

I'm only questioning your assertions shunya. I think it is up to you to explain your assertion of the possible in a way that makes sense such as the notion that "the universe is both eternal and created."

Actually Jim I do not propose anything is impossible nor possible about the nature or the existence of God. I do consider it possible God does not exist, and I believe it is very, very unlikely the anthropomorphic God of the Bible exists as described, but beyond that I believe there are many possibilities..

Okay.

[shunyadragon]

You do that by using illogic and claiming it to be okay because what you are describing is unknown. And just how can the Bahai scripture or anyone else describe the nature of that which is unknown and unknowable?

No logic nor illogic here. This is simply a description of God's relationship to Creation. You're misusing the concept of logic here.



I do believe that describing the Bahai view of the nature of God, which afterall is your view, would be tantamount to trying to define God.

False, this is only revealing some of the attributes and nature of God through Baha'i scripture.

No I'm not, i'm just trying to make sense of your discription of God and creation, which in my opinion doesn't make sense. "the universe is both eternal and created" "the universe is a reflection of Gods attributes" etc etc.

Yes you are read your own posts, you are defining what is possible and not possible concerning God in your own words.. Not making sense is your problem. It is simply a description of God's relationship to Creation in Baha'i scripture.

What are Gods attributes, and how do you know this if the nature of God is unknowable?

I do not 'know' anything about God, and I have made that point many times in the past. I believe in the Baha'i Faith and the revealed scripture. God's nature and attributes are revealed in scripture, and are ot the ultimate nature of God which is unknown. Many attributes of God are reflected in the nature of Creation and Natural Law. Also, love, justice, compassion and knowledge are attributes of God reflected through our human nature.

I'm only questioning your assertions shunya. I think it is up to you to explain your assertion of the possible in a way that makes sense such as the notion that "the universe is both eternal and created."

Okay.

They are not my assertions, they represent the description of the relationship between God and Creation in Baha'i scripture. You are not just questioning, you are asserting that such a relationship is 'impossible,' therefore you are defining what cannot be the nature of God, without believing in God in any form.

[JimL]

No logic nor illogic here. This is simply a description of God's relationship to Creation. You're misusing the concept of logic here.



I do believe that describing the Bahai view of the nature of God, which afterall is your view, would be tantamount to trying to define God.

False, this is only revealing some of the attributes and nature of God through Baha'i scripture.




Yes you are read your own posts, you are defining what is possible and not possible concerning God in your own words.. Not making sense is your problem. It is simply a description of God's relationship to Creation in Baha'i scripture.



I do not 'know' anything about God, and I have made that point many times in the past. I believe in the Baha'i Faith and the revealed scripture. God's nature and attributes are revealed in scripture, and are ot the ultimate nature of God which is unknown. Many attributes of God are reflected in the nature of Creation and Natural Law. Also, love, justice, compassion and knowledge are attributes of God reflected through our human nature.



They are not my assertions, they represent the description of the relationship between God and Creation in Baha'i scripture. You are not just questioning, you are asserting that such a relationship is 'impossible,' therefore you are defining what cannot be the nature of God, without believing in God in any form.

I think i'm beginning to piece together your thought here. Basically you, as it is taught by the Bahai faith, first and foremost, for whatever reason, a reason which will undoubtable remain hidden, believe in the existence of God and in a universe that was created by that God. You, or if you will Bahai, then go to work trying to explain from this presupposition the nature of this God, his attributes, by linking them with the attributes found in nature, or what you believe to be the creation, particularly those evolved attributes found in man, such as love, justice, compassion and knowledge etc. You call this, the nature of man, a reflection of God, and this for no other reason than that you for some unknown reason presuppose the existence of this God. Of course this doesn't explain, and perhaps you would like to explain, in what sense the material nature of the universe is a reflection of God?
Btw shunya, what is possible or impossible for a God is beyond my as well as your own purview and that being the case we should not attribute such abilities to a God that from our own perspected are not possible. Thats why I question you on such matters. If you are going to make unreasonable statements such as "the universe is both eternal and created, and that this scenario is possible with God" then you leave me no choice but to ask you in what sense is that possible. All i'm asking for in response is a logical explanation, not an anything is possible with God retort.

[shunyadragon]

First, this is not an easy post to respond to. It resembles a verbal minefield.

I think i'm beginning to piece together your thought here. Basically you, as it is taught by the Bahai faith, first and foremost, for whatever reason, a reason which will undoubtable remain hidden, believe in the existence of God and in a universe that was created by that God.

Second, this does not make a lot of sense based on what I previously posted. I do not believe you have accurately 'pieced things together. I will try and keep it simple. The highlighted above represents questionable editorial problem that were never in any of my posts.

Yes, I believe in God, and believe God and our natural existence is eternal with God. I believe you are hung up on your own specific definition of 'Create/Creation, which leads to unproductive dialogue.

You, or if you will Bahai, then go to work trying to explain from this presupposition the nature of this God, his attributes, by linking them with the attributes found in nature, or what you believe to be the creation, particularly those evolved attributes found in man, such as love, justice, compassion and knowledge etc. You call this, the nature of man, a reflection of God, and this for no other reason than that you for some unknown reason presuppose the existence of this God. Of course this doesn't explain, and perhaps you would like to explain, in what sense the material nature of the universe is a reflection of God?

Putting it simply, the material nature of God reflecting the attributes of God is 'Creation in God's image.'

Btw shunya, what is possible or impossible for a God is beyond my as well as your own purview and that being the case we should not attribute such abilities to a God that from our own perspected are not possible. Thats why I question you on such matters. If you are going to make unreasonable statements such as "the universe is both eternal and created, and that this scenario is possible with God" then you leave me no choice but to ask you in what sense is that possible. All i'm asking for in response is a logical explanation, not an anything is possible with God retort.

Again, I never said 'anything is possible with God.' This is unfortunately your own meaningless sarcastic retort. I said I do not consider anything specifically possible nor impossible concerning the nature of God. YOU are the one that proposed that something is impossible concerning the nature of God. You are also the one who narrowly defined; God possibly exists IF God is eternal and God Creates a temporal existence.

You need to explain the two contradictory statements above, because they do not make sense based on what I have posted.

[JimL]

First, this is not an easy post to respond to. It resembles a verbal minefield.



Second, this does not make a lot of sense based on what I previously posted. I do not believe you have accurately 'pieced things together. I will try and keep it simple. The highlighted above represents questionable editorial problem that were never in any of my posts.

Yes, I believe in God, and believe God and our natural existence is eternal with God. I believe you are hung up on your own specific definition of 'Create/Creation, which leads to unproductive dialogue.

No, i'm not hung up on the specific definition of Create or creation, i'm am hung up on your definition of the material world itself, the whole shebang, being both eternal and created. I believe you must have some kind of reasoning with regards to that assertion that you believe to be logical, but you've yet to explain it. How can a thing that is eternal be at the same time created?

Putting it simply, the material nature of God reflecting the attributes of God is 'Creation in God's image.'

So God in your view is of a material nature?

Again, I never said 'anything is possible with God.' This is unfortunately your own meaningless sarcastic retort. I said I do not consider anything specifically possible nor impossible concerning the nature of God. YOU are the one that proposed that something is impossible concerning the nature of God. You are also the one who narrowly defined; God possibly exists IF God is eternal and God Creates a temporal existence.

Yes you did shunya, you said that the material world is both eternal and created and that this, though not possible from the human perspective, it is possible with God.

You need to explain the two contradictory statements above, because they do not make sense based on what I have posted.

Explain to me how the two statements above are contradictory. If an eternal God is all that exists then what he creates must needs be temporal, must needs be created ex nihilo. You continue to deny this, which is fine, I just wish that you would explain how God can bring into existence that which already exist from eternity?

[shunyadragon]

No, i'm not hung up on the specific definition of Create or creation, i'm am hung up on your definition of the material world itself, the whole shebang, being both eternal and created. I believe you must have some kind of reasoning with regards to that assertion that you believe to be logical, but you've yet to explain it. How can a thing that is eternal be at the same time created?

No I do not have some kind of reasoning, and not it is not an assertion that I believe to be logical on my part. No I will not make any human attempt to explain the nature of God as the Creator. Your demands for an explanation is from the atheist perspective and it is simply not there from the human perspective.

So God in your view is of a material nature?

No, God Creates the material nature of our physical existence in God's image and attributes.

Yes you did shunya, you said that the material world is both eternal and created and that this, though not possible from the human perspective, it is possible with God.

Yes, I did, but that is not saying anything is possible with God. I do not remotely have any knowledge of what is possible from God's perspective. The nature and attributes of an object (God) can exist as long as the object (God) exists. What is possible from God's perspective cannot be limited to what is possible from the fallible human perspective. Again, this not saying anything is possible with God.

Explain to me how the two statements above are contradictory. If an eternal God is all that exists then what he creates must needs be temporal, must needs be created ex nihilo. You continue to deny this, which is fine, I just wish that you would explain how God can bring into existence that which already exist from eternity?

You are trying to limit the nature of God from the human perspective, I believe that is not possible. Simply the existence of the Matrix of existence from which all universes are Created has existed in God's image as long as God has existed. There is no Creation ex nihilo in this scenario.

[JimL]

No I do not have some kind of reasoning, and not it is not an assertion that I believe to be logical on my part. No I will not make any human attempt to explain the nature of God as the Creator. Your demands for an explanation is from the atheist perspective and it is simply not there from the human perspective.

Well perhaps you could tell me then, if it is not reason or logic that you base your beliefs upon, exactly what is it. And by refusing to "explain the nature of God" in human terms, I assume you mean that you refuse to explain "how a thing can be both eternal and created," since that is the specific question i asked. Why would you refuse to explain in human terms that which you assert to be true in human terms?

No, God Creates the material nature of our physical existence.

So the material world was created, not eternal?

Yes, I did, but that is not saying anything is possible with God. I do not remotely have any knowledge of what is possible from God's perspective. The nature and attributes and nature of an object (God) can exist as long as the object (God) exists.

Certainly, the nature and attributes of anything that exists will exist so long as the thing itself exists. The nature and attributes of the universe will exist so long as the universe exists as well. But that doesn't mean that there is something else in which that same nature and those same attributes exist. They can either exist in one and the same thing or they can be imparted to another thing, but in order for it to be imparted to the other thing, that other thing must either already exist or it must be created ex nihilo. If it already exists, then it is either eternal in God, ergo it is God, or it is eternal in itself. You claim the former which means that you are merely defining God and the material world as being one and the same thing aka pantheism.

What is possible from God's perspective cannot be limited to what is possible from the fallible human perspective. Again, this not saying anything is possible with God.

But why assert that is is possible for God if you have no idea what is possible for God, and reason and logic, from the human perspective, shows it to be impossible.

You are trying to limit the nature of God from the human perspective, I believe that is not possible.

No, i'm not trying to limit anything, i'm just trying to be reasonable, from the human perspective!

Simply the existence of the Matrix of existence from which all universes are Created has existed in God's image as long as God has existed. There is no Creation ex nihilo in this scenario.

I don't know shunya, i don't believe you are making sense. Above you just said that God creates the material world, and here you say that the matrix or Cosmos, or material world has existed eternally. And then to top it off you say "I do not have any reason or logic for my belief of this, and i will not make any attempt at explaning it." Well, i just do not know where to go from here then.

[shunyadragon]

Well perhaps you could tell me then, if it is not reason or logic that you base your beliefs upon, exactly what is it. And by refusing to "explain the nature of God" in human terms, I assume you mean that you refuse to explain "how a thing can be both eternal and created," since that is the specific question i asked. Why would you refuse to explain in human terms that which you assert to be true in human terms?

It is not a matter of 'refusing,' I explained it in human terms, but that apparently is not satisfactory to meet your demands. Despite your denial, you are still hung up on your definition of create.

So the material world was created, not eternal?

No the Created physical existence exists eternally. Your still hung up on your definition of create.

Certainly, the nature and attributes of anything that exists will exist so long as the thing itself exists. The nature and attributes of the universe will exist so long as the universe exists as well. But that doesn't mean that there is something else in which that same nature and those same attributes exist. They can either exist in one and the same thing or they can be imparted to another thing, but in order for it to be imparted to the other thing, that other thing must either already exist or it must be created ex nihilo. If it already exists, then it is either eternal in God, ergo it is God, or it is eternal in itself. You claim the former which means that you are merely defining God and the material world as being one and the same thing aka pantheism.

Again basic English fails you. You apparently do not understand the definition of pantheism. The Baha'i does not differ in some ways then other theistic religions in that there is a God who Creates, and a physical existence that is Created. You remain hung up on your own view of what it means to Create. As I said before you may use any word or phrase that works for you. Nonetheless in simple terms again, our physical existence has always existed as the reflection of God's image and attributes. This is a simple explanation from the human perspective that is apparently not sufficient to meet your demands.

Apparently, the only possible nature of the existence of God from your perspective is the traditional Judeo Christian description of God for which you do not believe exists.

In another thread you indicated that the nature of our physical existence is (likely) eternal, and you stated in this thread that the only possible God is a God who created a temporal physical existence. You also stated here that it is impossible for an eternal God to exist with an eternal physical existence. The agenda for your objection here is apparently that IF our physical existence is eternal, therefore God does not exist, because it is impossible for an eternal God to coexist with an eternal physical existence.

But why assert that is is possible for God if you have no idea what is possible for God, and reason and logic, from the human perspective, shows it to be impossible.

Because I do not know the limit of what is possible for God, My human perspective, like yours is limited, but you assert that an eternal God cannot exist with an eternal physical existence. That pretty much leaves us at an impasse.

No, i'm not trying to limit anything, i'm just trying to be reasonable, from the human perspective!

I already described it from the human perspective and you limited it from your perspective by saying it is impossible.

No you are not trying to be reasonable. You are speaking from an atheist agenda, similar to seer's theist agenda. Both of you that IF an eternal God exists, our physical existence must be finite.

I don't know shunya, i don't believe you are making sense. Above you just said that God creates the material world, and here you say that the matrix or Cosmos, or material world has existed eternally. And then to top it off you say "I do not have any reason or logic for my belief of this, and i will not make any attempt at explaning it." Well, i just do not know where to go from here then.

Your apparently forcing what can only make sense from your own egocentric perspective.

I gave my explanation from my human perspective, and that apparently does not meet your demands. It is your demands for a more (detailed?) explanation that I cannot meet, because I do not know the ultimate nature of God. Beyond this from the human perspective I cannot provide anymore. This is a belief in scripture concerning the nature of God. It is reasonable to believe that our physical existence is Eternal. Logically in this case IF an eternal God exists, therefore our physical existence is possibly eternal with God.

[JimL]

It is not a matter of 'refusing,' I explained it in human terms, but that apparently is not satisfactory to meet your demands. Despite your denial, you are still hung up on your definition of create.



No the Created physical existence exists eternally. Your still hung up on your definition of create.






Again basic English fails you. You apparently do not understand the definition of pantheism. The Baha'i does not differ in some ways then other theistic religions in that there is a God who Creates, and a physical existence that is Created. You remain hung up on your own view of what it means to Create. As I said before you may use any word or phrase that works for you. Nonetheless in simple terms again, our physical existence has always existed as the reflection of God's image and attributes. This is a simple explanation from the human perspective that is apparently not sufficient to meet your demands.

Apparently, the only possible nature of the existence of God from your perspective is the traditional Judeo Christian description of God for which you do not believe exists.

In another thread you indicated that the nature of our physical existence is (likely) eternal, and you stated in this thread that the only possible God is a God who created a temporal physical existence. You also stated here that it is impossible for an eternal God to exist with an eternal physical existence. The agenda for your objection here is apparently that IF our physical existence is eternal, therefore God does not exist, because it is impossible for an eternal God to coexist with an eternal physical existence.




Because I do not know the limit of what is possible for God, My human perspective, like yours is limited, but you assert that an eternal God cannot exist with an eternal physical existence. That pretty much leaves us at an impasse.





I already described it from the human perspective and you limited it from your perspective by saying it is impossible.

No you are not trying to be reasonable. You are speaking from an atheist agenda, similar to seer's theist agenda. Both of you that IF an eternal God exists, our physical existence must be finite.



Your apparently forcing what can only make sense from your own egocentric perspective.

I gave my explanation from my human perspective, and that apparently does not meet your demands. It is your demands for a more (detailed?) explanation that I cannot meet, because I do not know the ultimate nature of God. Beyond this from the human perspective I cannot provide anymore. This is a belief in scripture concerning the nature of God.

Personally i believe the problem lies in your explanation, from the human perspective, of the natural world, or of our physical existence, as being the image of God. What does that mean? That is how you attempt to distinguish the two eternals, God and the physical world, but you give no reasonable explanation as to exactly what you mean by the physical world being "The image of God." If you can not explain what you mean by that in a way that makes sense, then please explain to me why anyone should take it seriously?

It is reasonable to believe that our physical existence is Eternal. Logically in this case IF an eternal God exists, therefore our physical existence is possibly eternal with God.

It is reasonable to believe that our physical existence is eternal, yes. But no, it is not logical that if an eternal God exists that that which he creates is also eternal unless that which he creates is one with God, is the same substance as God, ergo is nothing other than what you would call God. Calling the physical world, the universe, the planets, the stars etc etc an image of God as if an eternal God looked in a mirror an the image of the eternal universe looked back at him is not a reasonable thing to believe from the human perspective. I realize that is an analogy, but analogies don't stand on their own, they need be logically explicable otherwise there is no good reason to accept them.

[shunyadragon]

Personally i believe the problem lies in your explanation, from the human perspective, of the natural world, or of our physical existence, as being the image of God. What does that mean? That is how you attempt to distinguish the two eternals, God and the physical world, but you give no reasonable explanation as to exactly what you mean by the physical world being "The image of God." If you can not explain what you mean by that in a way that makes sense, then please explain to me why anyone should take it seriously?

I gave the best explanation from the human perspective. I realy do not expect hard core atheists to take any theist view seriously.

It is reasonable to believe that our physical existence is eternal, yes. But no, it is not logical that if an eternal God exists that that which he creates is also eternal unless that which he creates is one with God, is the same substance as God, ergo is nothing other than what you would call God. Calling the physical world, the universe, the planets, the stars etc etc an image of God as if an eternal God looked in a mirror an the image of the eternal universe looked back at him is not a reasonable thing to believe from the human perspective. I realize that is an analogy, but analogies don't stand on their own, they need be logically explicable otherwise there is no good reason to accept them.

Again you are using human logic from the human perspective to describe what you believe is impossible concerning God's nature which you do not believe exists. More problems logically with this then errors in a Freshman essay.

Your argument is the same closed logic as seer's except in reverse. Seer asserts that our physical existence must have beginning in Creation, for God to exist, which he believes. You believe it is only possible for God to exist if our physical existence is finite and temporal, on the other hand you favor an eternal physical existence where you believe cannot exist with an eternal God.

You may friend, are redefining God so that it is comfortable with your nonbelief. which you do not consider any version of God to exist

[robrecht]

I gave the best explanation from the human perspective. I realy do not expect hard core atheists to take any theist view seriously.

Why not?

Again you are using human logic from the human perspective to describe what you believe is impossible concerning God's nature which you do not believe exists. More problems logically with this then errors in a Freshman essay.

This is true only if belief or lack of belief in God is considered the single fundamental axiom upon which all logic must be based. Sounds rather fundamentalist. Not very apophatic.