To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 17184
17183  |  17185
Subject: 
Re: slight
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Mon, 15 Jul 2002 16:48:27 GMT
Viewed: 
2506 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:

Put another way, you have no valid reason not to accept that the universe was
created by God, it would simply be an opinion or preference, based on whatever
reasons (but not scientific ones) you chose.

  There is a great reason to accept that God didn't create the universe; we
have no evidence that he did.  We have evidence that the universe is here,
and we have evidence that it began (in its current incarnation) some 15
billion years ago.  But we have no evidence that he caused it.  It is not an
unfounded leap of faith to think that the universe in its current
incarnation had a beginning or that the universe has in some form always
existed, but it *IS* a leap of faith to believe that God (et al) created it.
  Here's a diagram of your argument:

  P1: The universe exists
  P2: Everything that exists, except God,
        has a beginning
  P3: The universe had a beginning
  P4: The universe was created by God
-----------------------------------
  C1: God created the universe

  See how that's circular?  You're assuming the existence of God as Creator
which is exactly what you're nominally trying to conclude.
  Here's Tom's (and my) argument:

  P1:  The universe exists
  P2:  Everything that exists either had a beginning
         or has always existed
-----------------------------------
  C1:  The universe either had a beginning or has
         always existed

  See how that's non-circular?  We're assuming two things (both of them
quite reasonable, I should think) and we're drawing a conclusion from the
relation of those two things.


     Dave!



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: slight
 
(...) No, you can't by definition inquire about the starting point of a starting point. (...) To what degree? A "larger" leap of faith? Nothing what we are talking about is "logical" We are talking about something out of nothing. We don't have any (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR