Main > Main Forum

Interesting Craigslist find.

<< < (20/26) > >>

Justin Z:
You have made two unsupported assertions in your first paragraph.  Without supporting them, your argument can't stand.

They are:

- God exists outside the universe.
- A creator is obviously separate from, and predates, the creation.

Oddly enough, you immediately admit these premises are unsupported: "You can only blindly speculate about the nature of God because You don't know . . .  one single rule governing his existence."

But even stranger, you then go on to use these unsupported premises to support the "logic" of your argument, concluding that "the only thing that is relevant is the logical existence of a 'first mover' relative to our observable universe."

You have been harping on logic for the entirety of this discussion, but I'm not seeing it in your line of reasoning.  That said, I could be missing something.  If so, what is it?

MaximRecoil:

--- Quote from: Justin Z on March 14, 2008, 04:34:11 pm ---You have made two unsupported assertions in your first paragraph.  Without supporting them, your argument can't stand.

They are:

- God exists outside the universe.
- A creator is obviously separate from, and predates, the creation.

--- End quote ---

Nope, that's by definition, like I said. A creator is by definition separate from, and predates, the creation.


--- Quote ---Oddly enough, you immediately admit these premises are unsupported: "You can only blindly speculate about the nature of God because You don't know . . .  one single rule governing his existence."
--- End quote ---

That fact that words like "creator" and "creation" mean things, specific things, has nothing to do with the nature of God's existence. In order to create something, the creator must first exist. In order to qualify as a creation, it must be something other than what already exists. So as you can see, and as I said earlier, "A creator is by definition separate from, and predates, the creation."

Justin Z:
Your stating something as fact does not make it fact.

Your definitions are fine, if you have support for them.  Do you?  If not, I will continue not to accept your definitions.

Incidentally, there are other problems with your definitions, including the implication that something that exists outside the universe can interact with things within it, and that something can exist outside the universe at all.

JMB:
Wow.  This thread is going to end up in PnR and I don't even have access.  :dizzy:

TelcoLou:

--- Quote from: JMB on March 14, 2008, 04:54:00 pm ---Wow.  This thread is going to end up in PnR and I don't even have access.  :dizzy:

--- End quote ---

Lucky you  ::)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version