Mutcer wrote:Precisely. If something did not come from nothing, then what "thing" other than a something could it have come from?
SEriously, you are not reading my posts. God is supposed to be eternal. God was not gotten.
And if a "thing" is not a nothing, then it must be a something. Do you believe God is a something?
I believe Christians believe God is eternal and hence was not gotten from either something or nothing. I don't want to play word games around whether God is something or not, and in fact we do not need to. Since the issue is whether God came from nothing (or something). But God was not gotten according to Christian ideas. God always was.
If the "something can't come from nothing" rule doesn't apply to God, then why must it apply to matter, humans and the universe?
didn't you just read what I wrote. God didn't come. God was already and always present.
Do Christians believe that God is something? What real thing in this world do Christians believe "God" is?
And now you are shifting to another issue.
My argument weak? I find it highly ironic to hear that coming from a Christian or one who believes that an omniscient, omnipotent & loving God exists.
This is a texbook ad hom.
Keep writing over and over: what did God come from? God must have come from something. The Christians say that you can't get somethign from nothing.
And then imagine me saying: God did not come. God was not gotten. God has always been here.
What argument do you have that such a God does exist?
that is another topic. I am not arguing that God exists. I am pointing out the flaws in your argument.
But I have done this now at least 3 times - here, and more times elsewhere with you - and not a single time have you managed to address the idea that God was not gotten nor did God come according to Christians. I have said this in a few different ways. It would be one thing if you actually responded to this point, but you simply rewrite what you have written before without responding to this point. This makes communication with you useless for me. I generally need a discussion or debate partner to at least address the points I am making, especially if they ask me to point out what they have not addressed and still cannot manage to.
I'll try my best to ignore you from here on out.
You might want to notice the fact that Christians tend to view God as transcendant, meaning the word 'something' is misleading. They do not think that God is some thing
or part of the world of things or on a par with it. But you keep wanting to argue AS IF Christians thought God was also an immanent thing. Which is not something they say or tend to believe. Other religions do have immanent gods, there are versions of pantheism and panentheism - though the latter also has a transcendant facet - like this. Animism and some versions of paganism have gods within the universe, almost like personified forces that are part of or the forces in nature. But these are NOT the kind of God described by Medieval theologians that you argue against but only have a partial understanding of.
What you are rebutting here in this thread in not the Christian God. In fact I can't really think of what version of God this is. You can't pick and choose portions of a system of belief and leave out other important facets that affect the very issue you are posting about and be effective.