1. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    03 Oct '11 02:06
    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
  2. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91666
    03 Oct '11 02:08
    Originally posted by josephw
    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
    How does the second law of thermodynamics factor into "everything has always existed"? What do you mean by that?
  3. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    03 Oct '11 02:08
    Originally posted by josephw
    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
    And to assume makes an ASS out of U and ME.
  4. Standard membersumydid
    Aficionado of Prawns
    Not of this World
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    38013
    03 Oct '11 02:12
    Originally posted by josephw
    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.
    Our beloved Paul came to the same conclusion based on the same criteria.

    Hallelujah
  5. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    03 Oct '11 02:21
    Originally posted by sumydid
    Our beloved Paul came to the same conclusion based on the same criteria.

    Hallelujah
    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?
  6. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    03 Oct '11 02:23
    Originally posted by karoly aczel
    How does the second law of thermodynamics factor into "everything has always existed"? What do you mean by that?
    Well, first there was the first law, then the second, and so on. 😉
  7. Standard membersumydid
    Aficionado of Prawns
    Not of this World
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    38013
    03 Oct '11 02:25
    Originally posted by josephw
    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?
    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."
  8. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    03 Oct '11 02:30
    Originally posted by josephw
    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
    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.
  9. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91666
    03 Oct '11 02:31
    Originally posted by josephw
    Well, first there was the first law, then the second, and so on. 😉
    Silly me for thinking you were going to be serious😞
  10. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    03 Oct '11 02:32
    Originally posted by sumydid
    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."
    Ok. Then do you agree with the logic of that argument?
  11. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    03 Oct '11 02:40
    Originally posted by karoly aczel
    Silly me for thinking you were going to be serious😞
    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.
  12. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    03 Oct '11 02:43
    Originally posted by josephw
    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
    Even if we accept that the world was created, it does not follow that it was your god that did the creating.
  13. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    03 Oct '11 02:52
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    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.
    Irrational analogy.
  14. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91666
    03 Oct '11 02:551 edit
    Originally posted by josephw
    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.
    All that is subject to decay? (second law of thermodynamics)
  15. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    03 Oct '11 02:57
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Even if we accept that the world was created, it does not follow that it was your god that did the creating.
    What 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.

    Are you aware of the symptoms of denial?
Back to Top