Cosmological Argument: Is there a creator God, and if so what might He be like?
The Cosmological argument (also known as "First Cause") for the existence of God is one of a few different arguments that is worthy of consideration. This concept is based upon the idea of a "first cause." Matter and objects don't come into being from nothing by themselves; there is no beginning without a cause. The idea of spontaneous existence from nothing breaks the laws of physics as we know them. Nor does it make logical sense that matter in some form has always existed.
Secular scientists will tell us that the universe came into being because of a "big bang" or explosion of matter that caused all that exists to be shot out in all directions from a single place. This seems to help them better understand where all that exists came from. But, where did the matter that exploded come from in the first place? The same humanistic scientists would argue that it is illogical for God to have created everything from nothing. Yet, they will argue the point that matter had to have come into being from nothing, or to have always existed.
It is more logical to me to believe that God has always existed, as the Bible tells us is true, and that He created everything that exists from nothing. This will be especially the case when consider in our next thread discussion intelligent design and the need for a designer. Let's reserve that discussion for our next thread.
To me it would require more faith to believe that matter in some form came into being from nothing or always existed, than it would be to believe that God has always existed and created everything from nothing.
The Cosmological Argument is sound and it reveals that God must be all-powerful and that He exists apart from all of His creation. It reveals the greatness of God in His power, wisdom, knowledge, etc.
And, the Cosmological Argument also defeats all of the pantheistic notions of God being "the all" that exists. Hinduism, new age philosophy, and eastern religions that embrace a pantheistic god who is just part of the fabric of the universe are shown to be illogical and absurd. A creator God must be transcendant from creation though He may be involved in and present in creation.
Secular scientists will tell us that the universe came into being because of a "big bang" or explosion of matter that caused all that exists to be shot out in all directions from a single place. This seems to help them better understand where all that exists came from. But, where did the matter that exploded come from in the first place? The same humanistic scientists would argue that it is illogical for God to have created everything from nothing. Yet, they will argue the point that matter had to have come into being from nothing, or to have always existed.
It is more logical to me to believe that God has always existed, as the Bible tells us is true, and that He created everything that exists from nothing. This will be especially the case when consider in our next thread discussion intelligent design and the need for a designer. Let's reserve that discussion for our next thread.
To me it would require more faith to believe that matter in some form came into being from nothing or always existed, than it would be to believe that God has always existed and created everything from nothing.
The Cosmological Argument is sound and it reveals that God must be all-powerful and that He exists apart from all of His creation. It reveals the greatness of God in His power, wisdom, knowledge, etc.
And, the Cosmological Argument also defeats all of the pantheistic notions of God being "the all" that exists. Hinduism, new age philosophy, and eastern religions that embrace a pantheistic god who is just part of the fabric of the universe are shown to be illogical and absurd. A creator God must be transcendant from creation though He may be involved in and present in creation.
posted by Jim Bomkamp at
10:32 AM
26 Comments:
I should mention that I recently read a book called "God and Cancer," by Tim Chaffey. The first 2/3rds of the book details his struggle for his life after being diagnosed with Leukemia. The latter part contains his apologetics work, specifically regarding God and the existence of evil. His work is very good and his thoughts were on my mind as I wrote this thread.
First off Jim – congratulations on having refrained from using bible quotes to make your point.
Secondly, I am still curious. You speak as if the human-ape has the capacity to understand the creation of and the Creative Power of That which created the Universe.
This, to me, seems extremely absurd. You also insist (by inference) that only the Christianized human-ape has the capacity to understand the true Nature of the Creator.
If this is so then why then in 1633 was Galileo Galilei convicted of heresy by the Roman Catholic Church because he advocated a non-heliocentric universe?
You see Jim, Christians, at that time (as do many today) took the Bible quite literally. And this meant that, due to the existence of certain scriptures, the Church believed that the earth was a stationary object and that everything else in the universe revolved around the earth. I.e. – they believed in a heliocentric view of the universe. Hence – Galileo’s untimely demise. (He spent the rest of his life under house arrest.)
Below – I have listed some of these scriptures – just in case you might not believe me.
Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include (depending on translation) text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same tradition, Psalm 104:5 says, "the LORD set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place" etc.[88]
If one takes the Bible literally and the Bible is right Jim – then the sun, the planets, the stars and all of the galaxies and black holes in existence - are all revolving around us; the planet earth – Christendom’s Center of the Universe.
So, do you believe this to be true Jim?
Thirdly Jim, as I mentioned to you previously, no one (within the human race) can prove or disprove the existence of God. You can throw around suppositions and theories all day long, but at the end of the day – you’ve proved nothing. An Atheist believes there is no God. A Christian believes not only that there is a God but also that only his/her particular God is the “true” God. Yet neither one can set up a scientific experiment to prove their contention.
An Agnostic, however, does not believe in anything – I repeat – an Agnostic does not believe in anything. An Agnostic knows that he/she doesn’t know if God exists (or what that God really is (or isn’t) if that God, or any other God, does, in fact exist). An Agnostic is therefore – intellectually honest. An Agnostic knows the difference between belief/faith and verified knowledge.
To BELIEVE is not to KNOW. To BELIEVE is to SUSPECT; to BELIEVE is to be NOT QUITE SURE.
TO BE SURE is to KNOW. And TO KNOW is to have VERIFIABLE PROOF of that which one purports TO KNOW. And VERIFIABLE PROOF is attained only through THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. And what is proven by the SCIENTIFIC METHOD becomes TRUE; becomes THE TRUTH THAT IS (OR CAN) BE KNOWN.
Craig,
I chose this approach of not using scripture to debate you because you do not accept the scripture as true, not because I do not accept the scripture as the one and only source of absolute truth. For the record, you have opened the discussion here regarding scripture by quoting and referencing several of them, so we will be discussing scripture.
Your insistence that the scriptures teach geocentricity has been refuted by many authors, such as in this article:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2178
I'm not saying that the church has never believed in this, only that you don't have to infer scripture teaches this from passages such as you quoted. Please note that I do not accept responsibility for any of the atrocities, incorrect notions and interpretations of scripture, or misguided actions committed by the church (those who have considered themselves to be Christians) throughout history.
>>You speak as if the human-ape has the capacity to understand the creation of and the Creative Power of That which created the Universe.
Let's end this debate right now if we humans (there is no such thing as a human-age) cannot reasonably debate how everything came into being. Your many arguments themselves contradict what you state here regarding our human ability to understand.
Concerning the scripture teaching that the earth is fixed and immoveable, a number of people have shown that the intent of the passages normally quoted to support that do not teach that the earth is not moving. Here is a website, for instance, where the author debates that point:
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/q7.htm
I recognize that one cannot scientifically "prover" whether there is or is not a creator God. You challenged me on my facebook wall that I could not defend my belief in the Bible and the God of the Bible. So, I created this blog at your insistence. But, I do know what I believe and I know why I believe it. In this debate I can only show you a prepondance of evidence for my belief though, not a conclusive scientific "proof." I agree such is not possible.
Ok, now I keep waiting for you to actually come up with an alternative to the argument of my post. So far, you have tried to shoot holes in the Bible itself using various straw men arguments. But, you have provided no alternative to my argument, pointed out no flaws to my logic, etc. You should be explaining to me how that matter really could come into being from nothing, or how it really could always have existed. This is the argument we should be having at this point. Do you have an alternative argument?
BTW, I am going to admit your several post comments one at a time and comment on them as I do.
Craig,
BTW, I do believe that this creation testifies to every person of the existence and creative ability of God, just as this passage says:
Romans 1:18-26 (NASB95)
"18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural."
Craig,
>>An Agnostic, however, does not believe in anything – I repeat – an Agnostic does not believe in anything. An Agnostic knows that he/she doesn’t know if God exists (or what that God really is (or isn’t) if that God, or any other God, does, in fact exist). An Agnostic is therefore – intellectually honest. An Agnostic knows the difference between belief/faith and verified knowledge.
Do you really "believe" this? But wait, an agnostic can't believe anything, so how could you believe this? How can an Agnostic know the difference between belief/faith and verified knowledge if he doesn't believe anything?
>>To BELIEVE is not to KNOW. To BELIEVE is to SUSPECT; to BELIEVE is to be NOT QUITE SURE.
Is this also what you "believe," as an Agnostic? You don't sound like an Agnostic, you should like an Athiest posing as an Agnostic.
>>TO BE SURE is to KNOW. And TO KNOW is to have VERIFIABLE PROOF of that which one purports TO KNOW. And VERIFIABLE PROOF is attained only through THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. And what is proven by the SCIENTIFIC METHOD becomes TRUE; becomes THE TRUTH THAT IS (OR CAN) BE KNOWN.
Do you know this by the scientific method? Can you prove this statement?
Craig,
I am going to wait until you comment on my comments before I take out of moderation your other comments you have made to this post.
As far as Humans not being apes let us look at what Wikipedia has to say about that:
“Under the current classification system there are two families of hominoids:
· the family Hylobatidae consists of 4 genera and 14 species of gibbon, including the Lar Gibbon and the Siamang, collectively known as the lesser apes.
· the family Hominidae consisting of chimpanzees, gorillas, humans and orangutans[1][3] collectively known as the great apes. “
The reason I used the term “human-ape” in this discussion was to emphasize the fact that we are animals, highly sophisticated animals (perhaps)but animals never-the-less. And this fact goes a long way in explaining why our understanding may be quite limited as regarding the understanding of certain things. Certain things like the concepts of eternity and/or infinity and how matter was formed from the Void of Absolute Nothingness. Science may someday bring us a great deal closer to understanding such things but religion shines but very little light upon these concepts.
However, I am coming quickly to the realization that Jim Bomkamp does not lend much of any (if any) creedence to science or to anything or anyone who holds a different world view than he does. So of course, if a modern encyclopedia tells us that humans are apes but the Bible doesn’t, then – the encyclopedia, the scientists who wrote the article and those who read and accept the content of the article to be true - are all in error (at least in Jim's mind).
“I chose this approach of not using scripture to debate you because you do not accept the scripture as true, not because I do not accept the scripture as the one and only source of absolute truth.”
Incidently Jim - the reason science considers us to be apes is because of, not only the striking physical similarities but because, the DNA resemblence is so undeniably close.
Also – just because I know that human beings (at this point in time at least) are incapable of understanding the infinite complexities of an infinite and eternal (and quite likely a multi-dimensional) universe - does not mean I think that we, as human beings, are incapable of understanding, at least, a few of things that aren’t quite so complex.
I could throw out theories as to how matter popped out of nothing or how matter always existed… all day long. But – that would be meaningless – because why? Because I could not prove any of them.
Also Jim – I have a bunch of beliefs I carry around with men all the time. So yes – I do admit to believing things. Yet what I said was that an Agnostic doesn’t BELIEVE IN ANYTHING.
To BELIEVE (i.e. – suspect and/or speculate). is a great deal different than to BELIEVE IN (i.e - to have total confidence in).
And also again – why the existence or non-existence of an all powerful deity has become the issue – I am not quite sure. What I told you was that I don’t believe in the Bible. And I told you this because I thought that maybe this would help you in your discussion with me. And this is because - while quoting the Bible may mean a lot to you – it is meaningless to me. I.e. I put (little or) no creedence in the words of the Bible. Hence – Bible quoting will not help anyone (including you) win a debate with me.
I, myself, suspect that Something far more more intelligent than humankind can even imagine designed, or rather is designing and will continue to design, create, destroy and then rebuild the Universe.
I don’t, however, suspect that this “Something” is a “Something” or “Someone” that allowed a talking snake to roam the earth and alter the destiny of all mankind six-thousand some years ago.
Is that why you suspect that I’m an Aetheist Jim? Because I don’t believe in a talking snake.
I also don’t suspect that the Great Something would allow an ultra-evil spirit of some sort to constantly follow humans around and/or habitually tempt them, test them and otherwise make their lives miserable.
Is that why you suspect that I’m an Aetheist Jim? Because I don’t believe in such ludicrous notions.
I also don’t suspect that the Great Something would order humankind to kill their own children if they were found guilty of swearing at their parents?
Is that why you suspect that I’m an Aetheist Jim? Because I don’t condone a so-called god that would order one to kill one’s own children. (Leviticus 20: 9. )
And I could go on and on but I am presently quite tired and I believe I have made my point. No – I can only hope I have made my point on this issue with you. I somehow really do not suspect – i.e. believe that I have cut through the darkness regarding this issue or any other issue we have discussed.
But deprogramming takes time and patience. And so I cast my bread upon the waters and I wait.
I think that it takes too much faith to be an atheist.
My belief, as silly as it sounds to some, is "that God made everything out of nothing."
But the atheist really takes a leap of faith and says "I believe that NOBODY made everything out of nothing."
I just can't muster up that kind of faith. I will stick with what reality tells me.
Hi JimB. - MLD
Jim,
Your friend Craig made a number of errors concerning Galileo and the heliocentric debate. 1) Galileo argued from scripture. The RCC argued from the Ptolemaic system. Ptolemy was a Greek philosopher not a Bible character. 2) He states that the RCC argued for a heliocentric universe. Helio = Sun. He means Geocentric universe. He uses words he doesn’t know the definition of. 3) The Earth is the center of the universe, if you’re speaking from a relativistic viewpoint. All motion in the universe is described from the standpoint of the observer. If the observer is on Earth all motion can be described from that viewpoint. This is how orbits are calculated by NASA; they don’t take the Sun and the rest of the universe into account to launch a satellite to the moon, for instance. That’s basic Einstein. As far as models of the solar system go, it’s just easier to model the Earth as revolving around the Sun, etc. We all speak of sunrises and sunsets, this has no bearing at all on our belief about the motion of the Sun relative to Earth…it’s a commentary on where we’re standing. His verses on the Earth not moving are out of context; that too, is a commentary on our position relative to Earth and he should have the brains to figure it out. Show him Job 26:7:
Job 26:7 (NKJV)
7 He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing.
Craig,
I repeat. There is no such thing as a "human ape." The human species is not an ape. Even those who teach Darwinian Evolution teach that the human species evolved from the ape species, not that it is an ape. See this article for instance: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/human_evolution.aspx
The term "human ape" is just a sentiment based upon a prejudice that the human species evolved from the apes, via interspecies of undetermined types, and therefore is in a sense an ape. It has no scientific precedence however.
There is also a good deal of speculation about the comparison of human DNA with other species, relative to the supposed path of evolution to human, with some saying that human DNA actually appears to be closer to a pig's than an apes.
>>However, I am coming quickly to the realization that Jim Bomkamp does not lend much of any (if any) creedence to science or to anything or anyone who holds a different world view than he does.
It is an interesting acusation you make that I don't give any creedence to science. I think I have great respect to "good science," but alas I cannot say the same for some of what is called science, such as the theory of Darwinian (macro) Evolution. Darwin himself has convinced me not to believe his theory. He stated that if the fossil record was not replete with millions and millions of interspecies fossils (a frog with feathers, for example), then his theory is not correct. However, I do not know of a single verified interspecies fossil that has been discovered. I've never seen one in a museum. But, that doesn't matter because millions and millions have not been discovered, so his theory is false according to him.
However, those who pose as authorites in science nonetheless hold to Darwin's theory because of their absolute insistence that it must somehow be true. They do this because they refuse to consider the alternative, a creator God.
Craig,
>>Also Jim – I have a bunch of beliefs I carry around with men all the time. So yes – I do admit to believing things. Yet what I said was that an Agnostic doesn’t BELIEVE IN ANYTHING.
To BELIEVE (i.e. – suspect and/or speculate). is a great deal different than to BELIEVE IN (i.e - to have total confidence in).
Sorry, I do not understand the distinction between believing in something and believing. One who "believes" believes in something.
I challenged you in my earlier posts to recognize that you do in fact have beliefs and that these beliefs direct how you interpret everyting in your world. This is your worldview. We all have assumptions about which we interpret everything that comes into our lives.
My statement that your views sound more like those of an Athiest than an Agnostic was based upon the fact that you have lots of beliefs, yet the term Agnostic comes from the Koine Greek and is the combination of two words "no" and "knowledge." It means simply, "one who does not know."
You however, really do believe that the Bible is not true. You reject the Bible as being untrue. This does not align with the views of an Agnostic.
Craig,
>>I, myself, suspect that Something far more more intelligent than humankind can even imagine designed, or rather is designing and will continue to design, create, destroy and then rebuild the Universe.
Ok, so you are not willing to embrace matter as coming into being from nothing, or as having always existed in some state. I respect your intelligence for seeing that distinction. I personally do not see how people can take the other position, it boggles my mind that men with great intelligence in the sciences, including advanced degrees, can embrace something so rediculous to conceive.
I know you want to cut right to the debate of the validity of the Bible, but we're not ready to do that yet. I designed this debate so that one concept could build upon another and thus give us a foundation to eventually debate the credibilty of the Bible.
I am going to post my next thread post for this debate and we can let what we have discussed here spill over to there.
Jim - I posted a quote from Wikipedia that put humans in the classification of the "great apes."
Evidently you missed it so I will post it again:
"the family Hominidae consisting of chimpanzees, gorillas, humans and orangutans collectively known as the great apes. “
Also – if you had researched this topic at all (which you obviously didn't) you would know that the reason pig hearts are sometimes used as a transplant for a humans is – because of the size and certainly not the DNA relationship.
(A Chimp’s heart won’t work very well in a human because it is way too small.)
Why are you so ashamed of the naked truth Jim? We are apes! We are not pigs! Do you really think we are more closely related to a cloven hoofed farm animal than we are to those animals that share theses features with us:
Opposable thumbs, highly developed intelligence, the ability to walk upright (at least sometimes) on two legs, amazingly similar DNA, the ability to eat and survive on vegetables and meat, the ability to make tools, the ability to communicate in complete sentences… and the list goes on.
Yes Jim – Chimps make simple tools out of sticks to mine for termites. (Termites are “meat.” They also eat monkeys several times a year…)
And chimps, orangutans and gorillas have been taught to use sign language and/or computers to communicate. The famous gorilla “Coco” could communicate with humans in complete sentences.
Also – consider this statement from the online magazine - “Science Daily:”
“The chimpanzee and human genomes are more than 98% identical, but there are a few short DNA sequences that have changed significantly in humans since the two species diverged about 5 million years ago (see Pollard et al., http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.0020168). These 'Human Accelerated Regions' (HARs) provide clues into our evolution. (Photograph: Image by Owen Booth.)”
Certainly we are different from a chimp – but the differences are quite small compared to that of most every other animal in nature.
We didn't just evolve from apes Jim - we still are apes. Not pigs, not giraffes, not spiders, not elephants… - we are apes Jim – why does that bother you so much? Are you that PROUD that you can’t even fathom the idea that your closest relative in Nature is a chimpanzee?
I really don’t know what else I can say to make the quite obvious any more clear here but before we move beyond this topic - let me get this straight Jim – so you do not believe we are apes (or even closely related to apes) but you most adamantly believe in a talking snake.
Is this true?
If an ape can talk then why can't a snake talk?
The Human-ape is the only ape that talks. The other apes can learn human language but do not have a command of sophisticated oral language.
They use signing or computers to communicate with us via human language.
Snakes have only a small reptilian brain and cannot talk because they are very primitive creatures compared to apes. (They are not smart enough to make use of human language in any way, shape or form.)
Only in the Bible does a snake talk. But this is "Good Science" according to Jim. I.e. if it's in the Bible it must be true.
Craig,
I don't understand how you can think that it is a big stretch for me to consider that God could create a serpent (actually not a snake, btw) that would have the ability to speak. The creature wasn't a snake because the curse God gave the creature was to crawl on his belly and eat dust the rest of his days. It is possible before the fall of man though that other animals talked as well and that part of the curse on the earth involved them losing the capability for speech.
The other possibility that could bring about this speech by the serpent is the fact that the creature was possessed by the Devil. Creatures as powerful as the cherubs described in the Bible have the ability to do such a thing, I believe. In the book of Revelation there is an angel that has power over the winds on the earth, so causing a serpent to speak would be a simple task. Demons also speak through those who were possessed by them in the gospels and the book Acts, so they have the ability to animate creatures.
Craig writes,
Jim - Look the word “serpent” up in the dictionary. The word “serpent” means a "big snake" according to Webster's dictionary. The Hebrew word used in Genesis III:14 is “Nahash” (or hanaachaash) which also means “(the) snake” in Hebrew.
So are you telling me Jim – that big snakes can (or could talk) but not smaller snakes?
Let’s move on…
Below I have posted the Hebrew version of Genesis III:14 and the King James version of said verse:
Wayo'mer Yahweh 'Elohiym 'el- hanaachaash, Kiy `aasiytaazo't 'aaruwr 'ataah mikaal- habheemaah uwmikol chayat hasaadeh.`Al- gchonkaa teeleek w`aapaar to'kal kaal- ymeey chayeykaa.
And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Also - a cherub is a guardian spirit or an imaginary figure (according to its original Hebrew definition). Webster’s tells us that a cherub may be a heavenly being who supports the Throne of God or, quite simply, a form of angel. So - why are you comparing a serpent to a cherub or angel? In Hebrew - the word for angel is malak - meaning a deputy, a messenger, an ambassador, a priest, a prophet or teacher. In Greek the word for angel is aggellos.– meaning a messenger, a messenger from God (by implication), a pastor or one who brings good tidings.
Jim – messengers, deputies, priests, prophets and pastors talk – serpents (i.e. big snakes) do not talk Not now – not then - and not at any time in history.
You see – you are somehow assuming that I accept the myth of the “Fall” to be true or that the Gospels are true or that Revelation is a factual piece of literature. Again Jim – this is why I informed you right up front that I do not believe in the Bible.
Using the Bible (or biblical concepts) to prove the validity of the Bible is illogical at best.
Also – let me point out something else: the word “nahash” (snake) in Hebrew also means “to hiss.” And according to the Genesis myth – Nahash was made to crawl on his belly after Yod-heh-Vah-Hey – El-o-him (Yahweh ‘Elohiym or The Lord God) caught him in the act. This could mean only one thing (if you take the Bible literally (as you do)) – that the snake was a legged reptile that hissed before Yod-Hey-Vau-Hey - El-o-him cursed the poor creature (and all its kin and/or descendents) by removing its legs. After which, of course, the animal still could hiss up a storm - but could not walk, or run or gallop… all he could do is slither, undulate and crawl.
A serpent/snake hisses – it never talks.
The ape-man stated: "Jim – messengers, deputies, priests, prophets and pastors talk – serpents (i.e. big snakes) do not talk Not now – not then - and not at any time in history."
I find that statement to be arrogant - are you 100% sure that this did not happen at any time in history? Do you claim to know everything throughout all history? Is there a chance that you could be wrong?
Bobbie - Is there a chance that Superman will appear at you door in the next five minutes with a pepperoni pizza with anchovies on the side?
Craig writes: Jim – I did respond to your last thread and you did, indeed, post my response. And I didn't agree with you on hardly a thing. So how you can come to the conclusion (or assumption) that (in your words) “everyone agrees with me” – is beyond me.
No Jim – I do not agree with you on much of anything it seems. The only thing we have possibly seen eye-to-eye on is that no human has the mental facility to understand the creation of the universe.
So for you to posit the notion that “everyone agrees with…” you is naught but pure nonsense and non sequitur.
And why did you refuse or neglect to post several of my comments on the issue?Hmmm?
No matter – I will reiterate those particular points again (when appropriate).
(And - if you keep up the cherry picking – then I will assume that you don't feel it is within your capacity to entertain a fair debate. And at that point – I will leave the discussion so that you can continue to preach to the choir unencumbered by the distraction of intelligent disagreement.)
Let me first address the Watchmaker Theory.
The Watchmaker Theory is wrong because it makes fallacious assumptions and comes to an erroneous conclusion via the use of non sequitur. In fact it is one of the greatest examples of poor reasoning I have ever seen.
For example – consider the following simple comparison:
1. The watchmaker is a false analogy because it assumes that because two objects share one common quality, they must have another quality in common.
I. A watch is complex
II. A watch has a watchmaker
III. The universe is also complex
IV. Therefore the universe has a watchmaker
The last step is wrong, because it concludes something that is not supported by the criteria. It is best clarified by another example:
V. Leaves are complex cellulose structures
VI. Leaves grow on trees
VII. Money bills are also complex cellulose structures
VIII. Therefore money grow on trees (which, according to the idiom, they don't)
Sorry – you will have to do much better than that to prove the existence of a Creator.
Craig,
I don't have the time to respond to your posts right now. However, I just wanted you to know that I looked through my emails again and I find no posts that I have not posted on these now three threads. I don't know what to tell you other than that.
If you could please respond in the future not to this thread but the most recent ones, if your post deals with that thread.
I will respond more fully later.
Craig,
>>So for you to posit the notion that “everyone agrees with…” you is naught but pure nonsense and non sequitur.
This was meant to be humorous Craig. Thus, I put the smiley face by my comment. Obviously, I knew you didn't agree with me.
Craig writes:
Ok - glad we got all that cleared up. And I apologize for seeming to be (or actually being) a bit terse lately. I have been running around like a chicken with my head cut off - working 18 hour days on a video production for several days before hopping on a plane and heading down to Florida (where I am now).
I will send the unposted comments at a later time as I do not have access to them at the present time (I am in a hotel lobby typing away at their courtesy computer.)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home