Why is "God created the universe" more logical than "The universe sprang into existence by itself"? (Christians, Christ)

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

That's special pleading, that the universe must have had a beginning, but your God does not. Simply because we don't know yet what started the Big Bang does not suggest an accident.

Don't feed the troll!

He has been disabused of this exact thinking, just recently, on another thread and never returned. Now he shows up here spinning the same fallacies.

First he says there are no accidents without any evidence to back this up.

Then he also assumes, without evidence, that accidents can't have sources and that 'everything has a source.' Accidents are events that happen without intention or intelligent agency. Both accidents and non-accidents have sources.

Yet when it is pointed out that God must then have a source he back peddles, as you have rightly noted, with special pleading.

So then his statement that everything has a source is now refuted - even by himself.

His reason is that God is/or can be conceptually eternal.

Well then here is his own answer to the question - 'Name one thing that does not have a source?'.

The answer is - something that is eternal.

As such why not matter/energy?

This is surely conceptual and demonstrated through various cosmological models. It is also already evidence that matter/energy already exists unlike his God - which he has offered nothing as evidence for his existence let alone his eternal nature.

If matter/energy are eternal then it does not need a source and is not an accident because its existence is not predicated upon causality. You cannot fall into the trap of the fallacy of composition - what is attributed to the events in the whole universe (cause and effect) cannot necessarily be attributed to the whole Universe as such.

Game Over - he lost before and he looses now!

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Don't feed the troll!

He has been disabused of this exact thinking, just recently, on another thread and never returned. Now he shows up here spinning the same fallacies.

First he says there are no accidents without any evidence to back this up.

Then he also assumes, without evidence, that accidents can't have sources and that 'everything has a source.' Accidents are events that happen without intention or intelligent agency. Both accidents and non-accidents have sources.

Yet when it is pointed out that God must then have a source he back peddles, as you have rightly noted, with special pleading.

So then his statement that everything has a source is now refuted - even by himself.

His reason is that God is/or can be conceptually eternal.

Well then here is his own answer to the question - 'Name one thing that does not have a source?'.

The answer is - something that is eternal.

As such why not matter/energy?

This is surely conceptual and demonstrated through various cosmological models. It is also already evidence that matter/energy already exists unlike his God - which he has offered nothing as evidence for his existence let alone his eternal nature.

If matter/energy are eternal then it does not need a source and is not an accident because its existence is not predicated upon causality. You cannot fall into the trap of the fallacy of composition - what is attributed to the events in the whole universe (cause and effect) cannot necessarily be attributed to the whole Universe as such.

Game Over - he lost before and he looses now!

The odds that the universe all came about by accident is like putting your clothes in the dryer and at the
end of the drying cycle, all by itself, every sock is perfectly folded and put with its matching pair and
every underwear is perfectly folded along with every perfectly folded shirt.



As a matter of fact, the odds are much much greater than the dryer incident.

Originally Posted by jimmiej

But it is logical.

Sorry, wrong again - special pleading is a logical fallacy.

It is logical to say God is eternal.

It is also logical to say matter/energy are eternal.

It is not logical to conclude that only God can be eternal and not matter energy therefore God is the only source for matter/energy particularly without any demonstration of such a claim.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

The odds that the universe all came about by accident is like putting your clothes in the dryer and at the
end of the drying cycle, all by itself, every sock is perfectly folded and put with its matching pair and
every underwear is perfectly folded along with every perfectly folded shirt.

As a matter of fact, the odds are much much greater than the dryer incident.

Oh I am so convinced now that Eusebius gave us the definitive proof - The Drying Cycle Odds Argument.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Sorry, wrong again - special pleading is a logical fallacy.

It is logical to say God is eternal.

It is also logical to say matter/energy are eternal.

It is not logical to conclude that only God can be eternal and not matter energy therefore God is the only source for matter/energy particularly without any demonstration of such a claim.

The bible doesn't actually say God is eternal. We believe One who can confer immortality upon humans is One who likewise is undying. But we do take it for granted He is eternal where no actual proof exists.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Oh I am so convinced now that Eusebius gave us the definitive proof - The Drying Cycle Odds Argument.

Well, it's a better argument than none.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

The bible doesn't actually say God is eternal. We believe One who can confer immortality upon humans is One who likewise is undying. But we do take it for granted He is eternal where no actual proof exists.

No one said anything about the Bible. Jimie is the one saying that God is eternal.

[Shirina]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

The odds that the universe all came about by accident is like putting your clothes in the dryer and at the
end of the drying cycle, all by itself, every sock is perfectly folded and put with its matching pair and
every underwear is perfectly folded along with every perfectly folded shirt.

As a matter of fact, the odds are much much greater than the dryer incident.

Uh, no, actually your idea that the universe was poofed into existence fully formed more accurately describes the dryer analogy.

It wasn't as though the Big Bang spat out galaxies and solar systems and life all ready to go - which is what you're claiming the dryer does with the clothes.

Claiming that God did it merely adds an extra step to a still sourceless event. Giving the existence of the universe a source which, itself, does not have a source, says absolutely nothing in relation to the question being discussed.

Tacking on a "but God is eternal" clause is also useless because the existence of God hasn't even been established much less whether or not he is eternal. Unfortunately, pitting faith against science means that faith can simply make stuff up on the spot to defeat anything science proposes - but most of us are pretty wise to that age-old tactic.

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by jimmiej

See the bolded above. There are no accidents. Everything has a source.

The moose moving is only part of the accident. It was a pure accident.

[Sophronius]

Its because the universe is a logical event.