Thinker wrote:Then if there is no "who", then how do we address a person or other being?
I was answering at the cosmological level of "who" as a higher being. At the terrestrial level then you are perfectly correct.
Blob wrote:You absolutely sure we exist as how we perceive it?
No, merely that we exist. I think our perceptions can be and are very misleading.
Why must there be a "where"?
blob wrote:Because space exists.
Is that all? Are you sure?
Yes. The existance of space makes "where are we?" a legitimate question.
Why must there be a "why"?
There needn't be.
You sure? If a machine works by a "how", then "why" does it work, as in its purpose? How about WHY something exists as it does?
Again I was answering at the cosmological level. At the terrestrial level a man-made machine can be said to have a purpose, yes, because conscious intent is known to be behind it.
But one must know the purpose of the 5 W's as they exist as valid universal questions. An atheist can reject some things out of it, but then left without the full complete picture, a jigsaw puzzle uncompleted.
Or perhaps by answering the 5 Ws the theist constructs not a jigsaw but a castle in the sky.
Blob wrote:Yes, for YOU it is by "hows", but then it begs the questions like "why" does it work for the reason of "how"?
Which in turn begs the question is there a reason (as in conscious intent).
Blob wrote:you think saying "God did it" is too simplistic and needs to be observed scientifically?
No I don't think science can prove or disprove a god.
thinker wrote:Yes, IN YOUR OPINION, but how about God laying out the lab (Earth) for us to "play" with so we get closer to Him? Yet this is still not a valid option for you.
Yes in my opinion. I could be wrong. It is not a valid option because it does not add up or make sense, IMO.
One who believes in no God created everything must ask himself how it is logically possible for a godless universe to even exist, and for scientists this is fun and a hobby/job which just leaves them more confused.
Informed confusion is preferable to naive clarity.
So why go flat out wild trying to discover it when we (generations) have been trying to figure it out but still no answer?
We stand on the shoulders of giants in this era. As I said I do consider the culturally available options as well as use my imagination when pondering the big questions.
How can you think with your intelligent mind for a second that everything everywhere just came to be or eternally existed without a creator?
Using my imagination.
And how far does that get you?
Who knows how far it may take me? Imagination certainly took Einstein a long way, for example.
A God offers salvation to His believers only to punish them
Why not? Your god is said to be limitless and anything is therefore possible. This kind of possible absurdity is why I say I find the god-concept does not add up and makes no sense.
Thinker wrote:So, those that don't agree with what I said, means they are not intelligent? Human beings are most intelligent, if brain mass increases, does that person get smarter? Yes they do, but it is still limited to what we currently possess in that we still have all the same functions, just an increase in memory and the ability to out-smart people better, yet it still does not address core issues.
I'm not sure exactly what you are saying here. However, if it is that humans are limited in what they can know then I wholeheartedly agree. Hence my rejection of claims of absolute certainty.
While in external speech thought is embodied in words, in inner speech words die as they bring forth thought.