03 Oct 11
that the existence of everything is evidence for a creator. The fact that everything that exists cannot be proven to have always existed, is reason to conclude that everything was created.
How is it reasonable to conclude that everything was created because it cannot be proven that everything has always existed?
Because the alternative would be based on an assumption. One would have to assume that everything has always existed in order to conclude(irrationally)that everything wasn't created. And since it cannot be proven that everything has always existed, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude everything was created.
Critique
03 Oct 11
Originally posted by josephwHow does the second law of thermodynamics factor into "everything has always existed"? What do you mean by that?
that the existence of everything is evidence for a creator. The fact that everything that exists cannot be proven to have always existed, is reason to conclude that everything was created.
How is it reasonable to conclude that everything was created because it cannot be proven that everything has always existed?
Because the alternative would be based o ...[text shortened]... has always existed, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude everything was created.
Critique
03 Oct 11
Originally posted by josephwAnd to assume makes an ASS out of U and ME.
that the existence of everything is evidence for a creator. The fact that everything that exists cannot be proven to have always existed, is reason to conclude that everything was created.
How is it reasonable to conclude that everything was created because it cannot be proven that everything has always existed?
Because the alternative would be based o ...[text shortened]... has always existed, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude everything was created.
Critique
03 Oct 11
Originally posted by josephwOur beloved Paul came to the same conclusion based on the same criteria.
that the existence of everything is evidence for a creator. The fact that everything that exists cannot be proven to have always existed, is reason to conclude that everything was created.
Hallelujah
03 Oct 11
Originally posted by josephwThat's not what I said and no that is not what I believe. I only said that Paul came to the same conclusion as you. Creation itself is evidence of a Creator, so that even the unbelieving are "without excuse."
So you think Paul didn't believe in a creator before he deduced from his own intellect the reasons for the existence of a creator?
03 Oct 11
Originally posted by josephwGreat logic. lets try it on something else ...
that the existence of everything is evidence for a creator. The fact that everything that exists cannot be proven to have always existed, is reason to conclude that everything was created.
How is it reasonable to conclude that everything was created because it cannot be proven that everything has always existed?
Because the alternative would be based o ...[text shortened]... has always existed, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude everything was created.
Critique
I flip a coin in a darkened room.
The fact that I cannot prove it is heads is reason to conclude that it is tails.
Because the alternative would be based on assumption. One would have to assume the coin was heads in order to conclude that it was not tails. And since it cannot be proven that it is heads it is perfectly reasonable to conclude it is tails.
03 Oct 11
Originally posted by sumydidOk. Then do you agree with the logic of that argument?
That's not what I said and no that is not what I believe. I only said that Paul came to the same conclusion as you. Creation itself is evidence of a Creator, so that even the unbelieving are "without excuse."
03 Oct 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelSorry. I guess I can't get too serious about science since I know next to nothing about it.
Silly me for thinking you were going to be serious😞
But I'll try to answer you on this wise. When I say "everything that exists", I mean all matter and non- matter that exists including all laws that govern their function.
Anything. Everything. All that exists. All that there is.
03 Oct 11
Originally posted by josephwEven if we accept that the world was created, it does not follow that it was your god that did the creating.
that the existence of everything is evidence for a creator. The fact that everything that exists cannot be proven to have always existed, is reason to conclude that everything was created.
How is it reasonable to conclude that everything was created because it cannot be proven that everything has always existed?
Because the alternative would be based o ...[text shortened]... has always existed, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude everything was created.
Critique
03 Oct 11
Originally posted by wolfgang59Irrational analogy.
Great logic. lets try it on something else ...
I flip a coin in a darkened room.
The fact that I cannot prove it is heads is reason to conclude that it is tails.
Because the alternative would be based on assumption. One would have to assume the coin was heads in order to conclude that it was not tails. And since it cannot be proven that it is heads it is perfectly reasonable to conclude it is tails.
03 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwAll that is subject to decay? (second law of thermodynamics)
Sorry. I guess I can't get too serious about science since I know next to nothing about it.
But I'll try to answer you on this wise. When I say "everything that exists", I mean all matter and non- matter that exists including all laws that govern their function.
Anything. Everything. All that exists. All that there is.
03 Oct 11
Originally posted by rwingettWhat kind of a reply is that? That's not the topic of discussion. The topic concerns whether or not it is reasonable to conclude that there is a creator.
Even if we accept that the world was created, it does not follow that it was your god that did the creating.
Are you aware of the symptoms of denial?