movement to atheism

@kellyjay said
"The Jain theory of causation holds that a cause and its effect are always identical in nature and hence a conscious and immaterial entity like God cannot create a material entity like the universe."

The cause and effect occur at the same time, but it isn't true about them both
being always there at the same time. I can hit a ball on a pool table, the hit will
cause the ...[text shortened]... the effect and cause are there are the same time, if I do
not hit the ball the effect isn't there.

@KellyJay

Thoughts on this? (You did after all ask me to share).

'Jainism does not support belief in a creator deity. According to Jain doctrine, the universe and its constituents—soul, matter, space, time, and principles of motion—have always existed. All the constituents and actions are governed by universal natural laws. It is not possible to create matter out of nothing and hence the sum total of matter in the universe remains the same (similar to law of conservation of mass).

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Do you think it more likely you have misunderstood the Jainist doctrine or that it's millions of followers have never considered the point you just made?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
@KellyJay

Thoughts on this? (You did after all ask me to share).

'Jainism does not support belief in a creator deity. According to Jain doctrine, the universe and its constituents—soul, matter, space, time, and principles of motion—have always existed. All the constituents and actions are governed by universal natural laws. It is not possible to create matter ou ...[text shortened]... e the sum total of matter in the universe remains the same (similar to law of conservation of mass).

@kellyjay said
It seems that this assumes a great deal, for example God isn’t real and if there is one he is limited not limitless.

@fmf said
What about you? Don't you assume "a great deal" - namely that God is real and limitless?

@kellyjay said
My goal is truth and I am willing to discuss this until we agree I grasp the philosophy. If you are willing to painfully work through it with me.

I only have what you have shared so far to go on. When we bring absolute truth into our discussions to build on, the foundation should be the first thing examined don’t you think?

The relationship between God and the universe ...[text shortened]... g examined. If there are flaws there then the rest is all suspect.

Can we start at the beginning?

@kellyjay said
When it’s proclaimed it is impossible to create matter out of nothing this is only speaks to our limitations or all limitations? It seems that this assumes a great deal, for example God isn’t real and if there is one he is limited not limitless.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
But Kelly, the universe never had a beginning.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Yes, let's start there.

@kellyjay said
With what we know can time, matter, energy, and space be eternal?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
A finite mind will never fully comprehend an infinite being or an infinite universe.

@dj2becker said
So when dating methods are used for evolutionary timelines they are reliable but when they are used to date the age of the universe they aren’t reliable? How convenient.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
A finite mind will never fully comprehend an infinite being or an infinite universe.

@kellyjay said
Comprehending and fully comprehending are not the same thing, on top of that
what does that matter? I can comprehend you, I'll never totally understanding you,
and we are both of the same species. Our finite minds don't have to fully grasp
all there is to know about a infinite universe or God to understand there is an
infinite universe and God. In my struggle to understa ...[text shortened]... would God be
any different if He wanted to know us, outside of it would be on His terms not
ours?