I might be realizing I'm a deist

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

His join date was 22 Dec '04 so it is a logical assumption he is using the 'same' identity.

This common sense was brought to you today by an atheist.

Ah. Common sense.

Well maybe I didn't examine any dates but coversationally simply ASKED the poster point blank.

Not everyone jumps to examining history, joining date, etc.
There's nothing wrong with simply ASKING a poster.

AFTER I asked, I noticed some stats because someone pasted in some previous comments.

But since you're on a role about common sense, If the present form of the universe derived its existence from the previous form, and the previous from a previous , on and on in an infinite regress ...

I think you are implying an INFINITE number of creation events. This form CAUSED by the previous. That previous one CAUSED by an even more previous. So on, infinitely with no initial creation event.

If the word "creation" bothers you in this, then was the present FORM of the universe the only FORM of the universe or not ?

And if it is not and came to BE, then what is wrong with me using the word "created"?

Common sense now, right ??

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

Sorry sonship, did I miss your retraction for the erroneous statement that I believed the universe created itself out of nothing (despite telling you numerous times I believe in an eternal universe that had no creation event? ).

I made no retraction. I invited you to correct me if I was incorrect.

Swallow your pride, acknowledge your error, or jog on.

Blame it all on my pride. Try that.

Infinite FORMS of the universe? Right? That's your position? There were INFINITE FORMS of the universe.

The present one was not and came to be?
Right?

The present FORM of the universe was virtually created by the previous FORM of the universe, back, and back, and back in an infinite regress ?

Right? That's your position?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Big bang, big crunch, big bang, big crunch, big bang.... (You get the picture).

The universe is a Snickers bar?

Mmmmmm. Snickers Bars!

@darfius said
The point I am making is that colloquialisms sometimes "sneak" assumptions past critical examination. Nothing in the universe is "eternal", so why would adding up a bunch of nothings add up to something?

Colloquialisms are colloquialisms for a reason.

The target is clear speech, not obfuscation.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Big bang, big crunch, big bang, big crunch, big bang.... (You get the picture).

Nice theory, bro.

😀

@ghost-of-a-duke said
You have stated that 'the entity known as the Father is eternal and for all eternity He has "begotten" the Son.'

Please evidence that the above claim is true and that my (ongoing) claim of an eternal universe is fictitious.

(I won't accept 'because you say so' ).

An eternal being must exist to explain existence in general. "God" is the easiest label for this being, because the Christian idea of God includes the traits this eternal being must possess: omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence...and His Son is His exact image, but is the infinite made finite enough to interact with finite beings like us.

"The physical Universe is defined as all of space and time (collectively referred to as spacetime) and their contents." from Wiki

That "all" part is what you are trying to tiptoe past, but there is no single entity which one could point to and say "that is the universe". It is a catchall title for "all" the objects which exist, not an entity in its own right.

@darfius said
An eternal being must exist to explain existence in general. "God" is the easiest label for this being, because the Christian idea of God includes the traits this eternal being must possess: omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence...and His Son is His exact image, but is the infinite made finite enough to interact with finite beings like us.

"The physical Universe is defi ...[text shortened]... niverse". It is a catchall title for "all" the objects which exist, not an entity in its own right.

I tried to introduce you to the concept of collective nouns, but, apparently, you're having none of it.

@suzianne said
Colloquialisms are colloquialisms for a reason.

The target is clear speech, not obfuscation.

When we are talking about "everything that exists", it is a useful colloquialism. When we are trying to assign a property to "everything that exists" that clearly does not exist in everything, it is an obfuscation. You seem to enjoy disagreeing for disagreement's sake.

@darfius said
When we are talking about "everything that exists", it is a useful colloquialism. When we are trying to assign a property to "everything that exists" that clearly does not exist in everything, it is an obfuscation. You seem to enjoy disagreeing for disagreement's sake.

Collective nouns, man, I can't be any more clear.

@suzianne said
I tried to introduce you to the concept of collective nouns, but, apparently, you're having none of it.

"Universe" is not a collective noun, as there is only one. Not everything within the universe is a universe of its own. You keep trying to be a smartass and forgetting the smart part.

@fmf said
There have been several posters here over the years who believed that atheists are unable to understand faith etc. etc. ...and do not have access to knowledge about faith because they are "of the flesh" etc. etc. ...because faith has a kind of supernatural effect on the believer, meaning the non-believer is excluded etc. etc. I can't remember the Bible verse it's based on. Is that more or less fideism?

Fideism is the idea that human reason is faulty and inherently unable to comprehend God, that knowledge of God can come only through faith.

@moonbus said
Fideism is the idea that human reason is faulty and inherently unable to comprehend God, that knowledge of God can come only through faith.

1 Corinthians 2:14
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

I'd say you'd need God's Spirit to understand God, we cannot work ourselves up to that we can only ask for Him.

@kellyjay said
1 Corinthians 2:14
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

I'd say you'd need God's Spirit to understand God, we cannot work ourselves up to that we can only ask for Him.

So sayeth a fideist.

@darfius said
"Universe" is not a collective noun, as there is only one. Not everything within the universe is a universe of its own. You keep trying to be a smartass and forgetting the smart part.

Ok, I'm out... I guess you really can't fix stupid.

@moonbus said
So sayeth a fideist.

You believe we can reason our way to God?
I believe it is through faith, but even that is a gift of God.

Romans 12:3
For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.

Ephesians 2:7-9 English Standard Version (ESV)
so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.