-->
@secularmerlin
they have a great track record
Religion should prepare us for a mentality, not faith to God
Posts
Total:
166
-->
@SirAnonymous
Would you kill my children because I don't have the faith that you have?No. No, you not having the same faith I have isn't a valid reason for me to kill anyone.
Then you have more morals and compassion than your own god. Congratulations.
Your god doesn't agree:
2 Chronicles 15:13 but that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman.
Luke 19:27 27 But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”
So basically your god will kill anything and anyone simply for not believing. For he " so loved the world".
-->
@Stephen
Then you have more morals and compassion than your own god. Congratulations.
Not really. You missed the key words that it "isn't a valid reason for me to kill anyone." As I explained in my other reply to you, I don't have the authority to carry out God's justice. God does have that authority. And that brings me back to this question: Do you think morality is objective or subjective? If it's subjective, then how can you have any objective basis for disagreeing with God's justice?
-->
@SirAnonymous
Will anything happen in the year AD Infinity?
This is not AD infinity it is AD 2020. See the problem is that whether time is infinite or not and I remain unconvinced of either proposition, we have clearly reached this year. Either time passes or it doesn't and if time pases then specific times can be reached. AD infinity is immaterial to the conversation.
If time and the universe didn't have a cause, then that would be something from nothing, which is a positive claim that you need to support if you're going to claim it.
That is true. I am not however making that positive claim. I am simply rejecting your position. This in no way necessitates taking the opposite position. My actual position and I want to make this perfectly clear is that we do not know if time is or is not infinite. It would appear based upon our best cosmology that gravity is tied to time so it would seem that without a physical universe there would be no time but our math breaks down at a point during the event that we colloquially refer to as the big bang.
We would have to have evidence that it actually is outside of time. Simply saying "It must be outside of time because my argument falls apart if it isn't" would absolutely be special pleading, but that isn't what I'm saying.
Excellent. Then you may proceed with the presentation of your evidence.
"Seem to be" based on what? You're simply slipping your conclusion into your premise here.
Apparently we must now define "exists" for the purposes of this conversation. Apparently our axioms concerning this are not in line. Please present your preferred definition.
I could only characterize nothing in the context of this discussion by what it doesn't have. Nothing would be the complete absence of matter, space, time, energy, and everything else.
How could a nothing as you describe it exist? It doesn't exist by definition. We do not charactersize things by the characteristics they lack as a general rule but rather by the characteristics they do have. What characteristics does a nothing have that identifies it as a nothing?
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Then why do religious people still suffer the throes of human passions? I'm sorry but your demonstrably incorrect. We need only observe humans themselves.
-->
@secularmerlin
what throaes
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Dr. Franklin please try to keep up with the conversation. Humans are subject to human passions regardless of moral stance, religion, sex, nation or creed.
-->
@secularmerlin
but religion helps
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Arguably (all) religions (equally) can help to focus or mitigate human passions (which may or may not be a good thing depending on the situation) although religion is not the only effective method (others include breathing excercises or screaming into a pillow). How us this qualify as an endorsement of christianity specifically?
-->
@SirAnonymous
Then you have more morals and compassion than your own god. Congratulations.Not really. You missed the key words that it "isn't a valid reason for me to kill anyone."
That's right. It shows your compassion. A compassion that your god simply does not possess. Or are you saying that you would kill my children because I do not have a belief of faith in god, if your god told you to do so? Such as he does here:
2 Chronicles 15:13 but that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman.
Luke 19:27 27 But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”
-->
@zedvictor4
religion is how humans be in a commhnity
-->
@secularmerlin
This is not AD infinity it is AD 2020. See the problem is that whether time is infinite or not and I remain unconvinced of either proposition, we have clearly reached this year. Either time passes or it doesn't and if time pases then specific times can be reached. AD infinity is immaterial to the conversation.
AD infinity is indeed material to the conversation. If time had existed forever, then we would be living in the year Infinity, although not AD Infinity. Yes, time passes; however, it would take an infinite amount of time to reach the present year if time had existed forever. We would be in the forever that never comes. Thus, time cannot have existed forever.
That is true. I am not however making that positive claim. I am simply rejecting your position. This in no way necessitates taking the opposite position. My actual position and I want to make this perfectly clear is that we do not know if time is or is not infinite. It would appear based upon our best cosmology that gravity is tied to time so it would seem that without a physical universe there would be no time but our math breaks down at a point during the event that we colloquially refer to as the big bang.
Ok.
Excellent. Then you may proceed with the presentation of your evidence.
Very well. My evidence is a simple process of elimination. There are four possibilities (I forgot one the first time I listed them).
1. Time existed forever, so it doesn't need a cause.
2. Time hasn't existed forever, but it didn't have a cause.
3. Time hasn't existed forever, and it did have a cause.
4. Time has existed forever, so it doesn't need a cause, but it has one anyway.
Both of us reject possibility 4, the one I forgot earlier. Thus, I won't waste time on it. I have spent plenty of virtual ink showing why possibility 1 is impossible and possibility 2 is logically absurd. This only leaves possibility 3, which is that time has a beginning and a cause. This cause could be either within time (although it would have to be a different timeline than our own, for obvious reasons) or outside of time, i.e. timeless. If it was within time, then, by the same reasoning shown above, the timeline it was in would also need a cause. If the cause for that timeline was within time, then its timeline would need a cause, etc. Thus, the possibility that the cause for time is itself within time leads to an infinite regress, which is illogical. Therefore, the cause for time must be timeless.
Apparently we must now define "exists" for the purposes of this conversation. Apparently our axioms concerning this are not in line. Please present your preferred definition.
The definition from the Cambridge Dictionary is a good one. "To be, or to be real." https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/exist
How could a nothing as you describe it exist? It doesn't exist by definition.We do not charactersize things by the characteristics they lack as a general rule but rather by the characteristics they do have. What characteristics does a nothing have that identifies it as a nothing?
No, it doesn't exist. Nothing in the sense I'm using it is not a thing that exists; it's the absence of anything existing.
-->
@Stephen
Or are you saying that you would kill my children because I do not have a belief of faith in god, if your god told you to do so?
It is impossible for me to know what I would do in any situation I have not experienced. You may as well ask me whether I would shoot my mother to save my father, what type of bread I would want on a manure sandwich, or any other number of useless hypothetical questions. The answer to all of them is, "I don't know. I've never been in that situation."
But let's suppose for a moment that the answer is yes. On what objective basis would you condemn me? This is what I'm trying to get at. I strongly disagree with you that God is evil. But even if He is, you have no basis to condemn Him, or anyone else. If all you have is the natural world, then you don't have an objective basis for morality. Nothing is morally good or morally bad. Sure, you can have opinions on morality, but, at the end of the day, they're just opinions. To put it simply, you keep trying to prove that God is evil, but you don't have any way of proving that evil even exists.
I'll ask again: do you have any objective basis for condemning God's actions? If so, what is it, and where does it come from?
-->
@SirAnonymous
Or are you saying that you would kill my children because I do not have a belief of faith in god, if your god told you to do so?It is impossible for me to know what I would do in any situation I have not experienced.
But do you not have a loyalty to your god and his commandments? And, for instance, does not your god command that a child that curses his parents be put to death? yes , here we are :
"'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head."Leviticus 20:9
So would you then kill your daughter if she cursed you or "dishonoured" you in any way?
You may as well ask me whether I would shoot my mother to save my father,
But I didn't ask that. Stop being silly. I asked you something that involves your god and your holy scriptures.
what type of bread I would want on a manure sandwich,
But I didn't ask that, Stop being silly. I asked you something that involves your god and your holy scriptures.
or any other number of useless hypothetical questions.
I think you mean any number of difficult questions. You need to learn the difference.
The answer to all of them is, "I don't know. I've never been in that situation."
So then concerning your loyalty to your god and his commands such as commanded in Leviticus 20:9, you are saying you don't know what you would do, although your gods instructions are clear?
I strongly disagree with you that God is evil.
So then considering that you belief your god is not evil and can do no wrong, why are you hesitant to commit to an answer to my questions, when the command is clear in the extreme?
But even if He is, you have no basis to condemn Him, or anyone else.
That is only your opinion and you are welcome to it.
If all you have is the natural world, then you don't have an objective basis for morality.
Again that is your opinion and what you believe of me is irrelevant.
To put it simply, you keep trying to prove that God is evil, but you don't have any way of proving that evil even exists.
The bible makes it clear that evil exists or have you never read it for yourself? Isn't this why Christians ask the lord to "deliver us from evil". If it doesn't exist then there is nothing or need of your god / Jesus to deliver us from, is there? Or are you saying you are not sure that evil exists? Or you don't believe evil exist although the bible makes it clear many times that evil is real and it exists? Or is the bible wrong?
And incidentally, the word evil appears in the entire Bible 613 times in 569 verses in 343 chapters in 60 books. The word evildoer appears 2 times and evildoers appears 12 times in the KJV Bible. Why does it appear so many times if you doubt evil even exists?
I'll ask again: do you have any objective basis for condemning God's actions? If so, what is it, and where does it come from?
Apart from gods own hypocrisy of thou shall not kill then immediately orders Moses to murder thousands of his own people?
"And the LORD said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel".
Why didn't god do his own evil dirty work?
-->
@SirAnonymous
AD infinity is indeed material to the conversation. If time had existed forever, then we would be living in the year Infinity, although not AD Infinity. Yes, time passes; however, it would take an infinite amount of time to reach the present year if time had existed forever. We would be in the forever that never comes. Thus, time cannot have existed forever.
That it seems nonsensical to you does not mean it is not a possibility. Humanity once largely regarded lightning as an act of god(s) but then we became more able to investigate the phenomena and found that it is actually due to imbalance in the positive and negative charge. This is now fundamental to our understanding of lightning but if you could go back in time and try to explain this to primitive people it would sound nonsensical to them because they are fundamentally unaware of positive and negative charge and its effects on the movement of electrons.
No, it doesn't exist. Nothing in the sense I'm using it is not a thing that exists; it's the absence of anything existing.
The tautologically nothing as you describe it cannot be somethings cause. This is not the same as saying something could come about without a cause.
The definition from the Cambridge Dictionary is a good one. "To be, or to be real."
This is not especially helpful. What does it mean to be or to be real? How do we verify that things are real? That they are? What qualities does a thing have that make it real?
Very well. My evidence is a simple process of elimination. There are four possibilities (I forgot one the first time I listed them).
Ok
1. Time existed forever, so it doesn't need a cause.
I think I've pointed out that while I am not advocating for this position even if it seems like a nonsensical statement to say that time has always existed to us does not preclude it being the actual case.
2. Time hasn't existed forever, but it didn't have a cause.
Same as above. That this would seem counter intuitive is true but our best evidence that nothing occurs without a cause is that we have not confirmed positively any things that don't. Now we have observed virtual particles that appear to be causeless but if I claim that they are in fact without cause I would be committing the same black swan fallacy that you are committing when you say that the universe in fact does have a cause. The best we can say of either is that we are unaware of any demonstrable cause.
3. Time hasn't existed forever, and it did have a cause.
We both accept this as a possibility but while other potential possibilities exist we cannot rule that it is a necessary only a sufficient and an explanation being sufficient =/= it being true. On a separate note this thinking does not get us to a creator even if we accept it as necessary it only gets us to a cause.
4. Time has existed forever, so it doesn't need a cause, but it has one anyway.
Again this would seem counter intuitive but that does not make it necessarily untrue. Perhaps causation I'd not necessarily linear, especially if objects enteties and/or causes can exist outside of time (itself as seemingly impossible to me as something happening without a cause or time existing forever).
-->
@Stephen
The question you asked is difficult, but that doesn't prevent it from being silly and on the same level as the questions I compared it to. The answer to all such questions is the same. I've never been in those situations, so I don't know what I would do.
However, you managed to completely miss my point. I'm not trying to say that I doubt that evil exists. As you pointed out, the Bible provides a strong basis for the existence of evil. Rather, I was asking you if you have an objective basis for evil. So I ask again: do you thing morality is objective or subjective? If it's subjective, then nothing is objectively morally wrong, so your argument that God is immoral collapses. But if it's objective, then what is it based on? Again, I'm asking you.
-->
@secularmerlin
That it seems nonsensical to you does not mean it is not a possibility.
That's true, but I'm not saying that it's impossible just because it seems nonsensical to me. I'm making a logical argument demonstrating that it is impossible.
The tautologically nothing as you describe it cannot be somethings cause. This is not the same as saying something could come about without a cause.
I think this is a distinction without a difference. Beginning without a cause is something from nothing. Even if you manage to split hairs to make a distinction, it's still logically absurd.
This is not especially helpful. What does it mean to be or to be real? How do we verify that things are real? That they are? What qualities does a thing have that make it real?
Ontology is not my strong point, but I'm not sure that there are any qualities common to all real things beyond simple existence.
I think I've pointed out that while I am not advocating for this position even if it seems like a nonsensical statement to say that time has always existed to us does not preclude it being the actual case.
See my first point.
Same as above. That this would seem counter intuitive is true but our best evidence that nothing occurs without a cause is that we have not confirmed positively any things that don't. Now we have observed virtual particles that appear to be causeless but if I claim that they are in fact without cause I would be committing the same black swan fallacy that you are committing when you say that the universe in fact does have a cause. The best we can say of either is that we are unaware of any demonstrable cause.
Again, I'm not arguing that something can begin to exist without a cause simply because it's never happened before (the black swan fallacy). I'm saying that it's inherently logically absurd.
We both accept this as a possibility but while other potential possibilities exist we cannot rule that it is a necessary only a sufficient and an explanation being sufficient =/= it being true. On a separate note this thinking does not get us to a creator even if we accept it as necessary it only gets us to a cause.
Agreed, it doesn't immediately get us to a creator. However, we can examine what properties the cause would need in order to cause the universe. It would have to timeless, extremely powerful, extremely knowledgeable, etc, which sounds a lot like a creator.
Again this would seem counter intuitive but that does not make it necessarily untrue. Perhaps causation I'd not necessarily linear, especially if objects enteties and/or causes can exist outside of time (itself as seemingly impossible to me as something happening without a cause or time existing forever).
Why do you think existing outside of time is impossible? Sure, it's beyond our experience, but I don't see anything inherently illogical about it.
-->
@SirAnonymous
That's true, but I'm not saying that it's impossible just because it seems nonsensical to me. I'm making a logical argument demonstrating that it is impossible.
And I reject your hypothesis as untestable. Now what?
Ontology is not my strong point, but I'm not sure that there are any qualities common to all real things beyond simple existence.
Your definition has become circular. Existence means a thing that is real and a real thing exists. May I suggest that the only useful definition is observable and independently verifiable. That definition may not cover all "undiscovered truths" whatever they may be but it eliminates absurd arguments such as loch ness bigfoot flying spaghetti flat earth voltron theory. If we allow unverified "truths" to enter the discussion where will it end?
-->
@secularmerlin
And I reject your hypothesis as untestable. Now what?
Now what? I simply point out that it isn't a scientific theory; it's a logical argument. Either it's sound or it isn't. Either it's possible for time to have always existed or it isn't. It doesn't need testing any more than 2+2=4, 2+2=5, or a basic syllogism.
Your definition has become circular. Existence means a thing that is real and a real thing exists. May I suggest that the only useful definition is observable and independently verifiable.
Something doesn't have to be observable or independently verifiable in order to exist, although it is true that we wouldn't know it existed otherwise.
That definition may not cover all "undiscovered truths" whatever they may be but it eliminates absurd arguments such as loch ness bigfoot flying spaghetti flat earth voltron theory. If we allow unverified "truths" to enter the discussion where will it end?
I don't know where it would end; therefore, aliens.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
-->
@SirAnonymous
Either it's sound or it isn't.
A sound argument with unverified premises is as liable to arrive at untruth as truth.
-->
@SirAnonymous
The question you asked is difficult, but that doesn't prevent it from being silly
Why is my question about the command from god to you to kill your children if they curse or dishonour you, silly?
The answer to all such questions is the same. I've never been in those situations, so I don't know what I would do.
Thankfully you haven't , but this doesn't distract from the cold hard fact that your god commands that children that curse or dishonour their parents be put to death. You may not know what you would do, but you know what your god commands you to do, yet you seem to have no issue with this vile command in the slightest.
I'm not trying to say that I doubt that evil exists.
Well this is what you have said above _ " To put it simply, you keep trying to prove that God is evil, but you don't have any way of proving that evil even exists.". : #133
So shall we ignore the bible and its 569 verses that all speak of evil existing and dismiss it as nonsense and to be un-provable " that it even exists" ?
As you pointed out, the Bible provides a strong basis for the existence of evil.
Yet you say it is un-provable " that evil even exists". #133 Do you not believe what your god inspired scriptures say about the existence of evil?
Rather, I was asking you if you have an objective basis for evil. So I ask again: do you thing morality is objective or subjective? If it's subjective, then nothing is objectively morally wrong, so your argument that God is immoral collapses. But if it's objective, then what is it based on? Again, I'm asking you.
Asking questions of your own in response to my questions is not answering my question. You theist seem to think by doing this that you have addressed the issue raised.
What you have done is deny what the bible - your own scriptures - say about the existence of evil and then posed a question of your own, which is irrelevant. It matters not what I believe is objective or subjective. So stop avoiding what are genuine questions concerning your god and your scriptures.
Although, I have addressed your question above at post # #134
SEE HERE>>>>>>>Apart from gods own hypocrisy of thou shall not kill then immediately orders Moses to murder thousands of his own people?
"And the LORD said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel".
Why didn't god do his own evil dirty work? <<<<<<<<
-->
@secularmerlin
A sound argument with unverified premises is as liable to arrive at untruth as truth.
That is why I did my best to verify my premises.
-->
@Stephen
Why is my question about the command from god to you to kill your children if they curse or dishonour you, silly?
Because I've never been in that situation, so it's impossible for me to know what I would do.
You may not know what you would do, but you know what your god commands you to do, yet you seem to have no issue with this vile command in the slightest.
On the contrary, I think you have taken those verses hopelessly out of context to arrive at your interpretation. However, the point I'm making is that, even if you're right that God is a murdering hypocrite, you can't prove those things are objectively wrong because you have no source of objective morality. Your argument fails before it even begins.
Well this is what you have said above _ " To put it simply, you keep trying to prove that God is evil, but you don't have any way of proving that evil even exists.". : #133So shall we ignore the bible and its 569 verses that all speak of evil existing and dismiss it as nonsense and to be un-provable " that it even exists" ?
Note the word "you." I didn't say that I can't prove that evil exists or that no one can prove that evil exists. I said that you can't.
Asking questions of your own in response to my questions is not answering my question. You theist seem to think by doing this that you have addressed the issue raised.
My questions are not intended to answer your questions. They are intended to address the premises behind your questions.
It matters not what I believe is objective or subjective.
It matters immensely because you have no foundation whatsoever for saying God or anyone or anything else is evil if you think morality is subjective. So yes, I will ask again: do you think morality is objective or subjective? If you think it's objective, what is it based on?
Although, I have addressed your question above at post # #134SEE HERE>>>>>>>Apart from gods own hypocrisy of thou shall not kill then immediately orders Moses to murder thousands of his own people?
This isn't an objective basis. What makes hypocrisy wrong? What makes anything wrong? That's what I'm asking. Before you can argue that God is evil, you first need to establish that evil even exists. So what objective basis do you have for saying that something is morally wrong?
-->
@SirAnonymous
Well this is what you have said above _ " To put it simply, you keep trying to prove that God is evil, but you don't have any way of proving that evil even exists.". : #133So shall we ignore the bible and its 569 verses that all speak of evil existing and dismiss it as nonsense and to be un-provable " that it even exists" ?Note the word "you." I didn't say that I can't prove that evil exists or that no one can prove that evil exists. I said that you can't.
But then you accept that evil exists , the bible makes it clear that evil exists but you want me to prove that evil exists to discuss evil. Well as slippery as you are, you still haven't addressed neither of my questions. i.e , you know what your god commands concerning children that curse their parents Leviticus 20:9 and attempt to bat this vile and evil command away by calling my question about it "silly" and telling me that because you have never been in such a position that, "you don't know what you would do" although your god - in writing - makes it clear exactly what you should do. Your hesitation is telling.
"'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head."Leviticus 20:9
I believe the truth is that you would deny your gods command. proven by your comments here>>
Unless you are a full blown extremist as are millions Muslims who kill their children -especially their daughters - at the drop of an hat and >>>>>WITHOUT QUESTION OR HESITATION<<<<< because the Koran or Allah and the Sunnah or hadith demands it.
-->
@SirAnonymous
That is why I did my best to verify my premises.
Let me try one more time to explain. You cannot verify anything that happened before the Planc time. It is an exercise in futility. Any premise that relies on trying to make sense of something that the best and brightest cosmologists in the field who have been working on the mystery their whole lives cannot make sense of is unlikely to be a fruitful endeavor. If your premises hinges on determining what reality was like before the big bang then it is by necessity unverified. In fact we don't even know if "before the big bang" is a nonsensical phrase.
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes, the laws of physics are thought to break down at that point. However, the laws of logic don't. Since my argument is built on logic rather than physics, your objection doesn't hold water. Also, my argument isn't about what was happening so much as where it came from, which is a different question.
-->
@SirAnonymous
Logic is based on the fact that the universe behaves predictably. That the past repeats itself. That is a problem when dealing with an event (if you can call it that) which we cannot observe and does not follow predictable patterns that can be described mathematically.
In any case logically speaking we cannot suggest anything as a cause before we establish that thing as existing. Even if I grant the idea of some sort of prime mover unless you can make a case for your particular prime mover over world creating pixies and flying spaghetti monsters and indeed mindless processes governed purely by naturalistic forces as your timeless spaceless eternal cause then your argument doesn't support your conclusion.
-->
@Stephen
But then you accept that evil exists , the bible makes it clear that evil exists but you want me to prove that evil exists to discuss evil.
Yes, because you can't appeal to the Bible or God as a source of morality because don't believe them. So in order for you to say God is evil, you need an objective source of evil apart from God or the Bible. So I ask again: do you think morality is objective, and if so, where does it come from?
As for your questions, my answer is simple. Even if you're right and God did command those things (I think you're taking them out of context, but for the sake of argument), so what? Unless you have an objective basis for morality, you have no objective basis for condemning God or His commands, regardless of what they are.
-->
@secularmerlin
Logic is based on the fact that the universe behaves predictably. That the past repeats itself. That is a problem when dealing with an event (if you can call it that) which we cannot observe and does not follow predictable patterns that can be described mathematically.
I disagree with that. There are some principles of logic that can't change. Two plus two will always be four and not five. Circles can never be square.
In any case logically speaking we cannot suggest anything as a cause before we establish that thing as existing.
However, there are certain effects that necessitate certain causes, so the existence of the effect is evidence of the cause. For instance, if I see an oak tree, I don't need to search around for evidence that there was an acorn in the area at some point in the past. The oak tree itself is proof of that.
Even if I grant the idea of some sort of prime mover unless you can make a case for your particular prime mover over world creating pixies and flying spaghetti monsters and indeed mindless processes governed purely by naturalistic forces as your timeless spaceless eternal cause then your argument doesn't support your conclusion.
Well, the conclusion of the argument I'm making is a timeless, spaceless, powerful, knowledge entity. It doesn't rule out flying spaghetti monsters or pixies because it isn't meant to. It does rule out naturalistic processes, because such a cause would have to be outside of nature (from our perspective).
-->
@SirAnonymous
I disagree with that. There are some principles of logic that can't change. Two plus two will always be four and not five. Circles can never be square.
These are definitional truths. They are true because of how we define two, four, five circle and square. They are based on linguistic conventions more than logic. I don't mind using language prescriptively but you can't just define something into existence you must actually demonstrate that something which fits your definition actually exists.
However, there are certain effects that necessitate certain causes, so the existence of the effect is evidence of the cause. For instance, if I see an oak tree, I don't need to search around for evidence that there was an acorn in the area at some point in the past. The oak tree itself is proof of that.
We can demonstrate that trees grow from acorns. We have multiple documented cases. We have one universe whose origin we can only speculate on. That gives us a documented sample size of zero and that gives us nothing to base our logic on.
Well, the conclusion of the argument I'm making is a timeless, spaceless, powerful, knowledge entity.
Even if I grant timeless and spaceless which sounds indistinguishable to me from nonexistent but let's go with it why on earth would I grant necessarily powerful or knowledge entity whatever that means?