Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is God part of the set you named "everything that exists"?
no. Logically there has to be a cause bigger than the things that exist. At some point there had to be an uncaused cause.
The rocket scientists on here that suggest the universe is eternal by the same logic haven't come to grips with the basic idea that we know the universe had a beginning by virtue of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and the existence of time (how do you pass an infinite amount of time to get to now?).
no. Logically there has to be a cause bigger than the things that exist. At some point there had to be an uncaused cause.
No evidence that that cause is a god.
Quote:
The rocket scientists on here that suggest the universe is eternal by the same logic haven't come to grips with the basic idea that we know the universe had a beginning by virtue of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and the existence of time (how do you pass an infinite amount of time to get to now?).
Time is part of the universe, and thus began with the universe
I've repeatedly demonstrated it. I honestly doubt you and the other anti-Creationists here care to see it.
No, you haven't. You've only presented ragged hypotheses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
The universe exists. Why?
The universe was created.
Causality shows us that everything that exists was caused by something else to exist.
This is difficult to do when the ones that publish those journals won't let anyone in that doesn't agree with them. However, the cosmological argument is an old one and has been around since before the scientific model.
Causality is an accepted thing among most scientists today.
Again...experiments routinely conclude that causality exists. Thus, creationism should be widely accepted: The universe exists, so it was caused.
Nope. Try again.
This is false logic. You cannot use evidence that everything that exists has a prior cause an subsequently introduce an uncaused cause, since that goes directly against what you are proposing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
no. Logically there has to be a cause bigger than the things that exist. At some point there had to be an uncaused cause.
That cause would exist, though. A non-existent thing cannot influence things that exist. By definition, non-existence is imaginary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
What else would you call a being that created the universe?
You call that evidence? That is a hypothesis, nothing more.
Quote:
That's my point. Time had a beginning. It is not eternal, or we never could have passed an eternal amount of time to get to this today.
If I can get past the Immaculate Conception stuff, I'd still have to wrap my head around an ark that managed to hold two of every kind of animal that was collected from all corners of the earth by one guy. What the hell did he feed them anyway?
Actually... that's two of every unclean animal. The clean animals got seven pairs of each.
No, you haven't. You've only presented ragged hypotheses.
This is false logic. You cannot use evidence that everything that exists has a prior cause an subsequently introduce an uncaused cause, since that goes directly against what you are proposing.
That cause would exist, though. A non-existent thing cannot influence things that exist. By definition, non-existence is imaginary.
You call that evidence? That is a hypothesis, nothing more.
What about the time before our time began?
Honestly....I don't think it matters at this point. Like the rest of the anti-God crowd on this board, you're closed-minded and won't accept whatever I give you.
If you want to understand it, go back and re-read my posts, or google "cosmological argument". It's not that complicated.
Only Miss Massachusetts and Campanella stood up for Darwin.Score one for Charles Darwin. The newly crowned Miss USA, Alyssa Campanella, 21, of Los Angeles, who calls herself "a huge science geek," says evolution should be taught in public schools.
I can assure you that my scientific background far exceeds that of yours. Do you happen to know what "Aero" could possibly allude to?
If it stands for "aerospace engineer" then you and I have the same degree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
Theory is not exclusively the domain of scientific relevance.
Only when equivocating. But within the context of science, theory has only one actual meaning. So perhaps you should consider sticking to that one when pretending to discuss science.
I have repeatedly given a logical deduction using the cosmological argument for why the universe was created.
And you have repeatedly run away from the direct demonstration that your "logical deduction" is internally contradictory and self refuting.
So the symmetry there is perfect.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
