Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

a reply to: edmc^2

So you will not answer this then? Ok I will see you leave the field with your ball then

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

So this is the most logical answer for you is it?

If something cannot come from nothing, then something must have always Been. This is God - From Him all things were made.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

So this is the most logical answer for you is it?

If something cannot come from nothing, then something must have always Been. This is God - From Him all things were made.

Always existing = came from nothing

Nothing made it, because it didn't need to be made. The universe I mean. It always existed, even before the big bang. The universe simply is. It doesn't require a creator or designer anymore than god does. Unless you can point to whoever designed god? Since he is at least as sophisticated as the universe. No daddy for god, no daddy for the universe.

a reply to: cooperton

That is an argument based on circular logic. Those are considered to be logically fallible. While this gnosis of yours is shared by many, it is still a mater of faith, not fact.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Nothing made it, because it didn't need to be made. The universe I mean. It always existed, even before the big bang. The universe simply is. It doesn't require a creator or designer anymore than god does. Unless you can point to whoever designed god? Since he is at least as sophisticated as the universe. No daddy for god, no daddy for the universe.

You can believe that. I personally believe this always-existent force is intelligent rather than unintelligent.

a reply to: cooperton

Your conclusion has no connection to you premises.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: cooperton

Your conclusion has no connection to you premises.

1) something cannot come from nothing: True
2) something is existent: True
3) Therefore something was always existent: True


Intelligence exists. You and I are evidence of that. How could intelligence come from non-intelligence?

originally posted by: cooperton
1) something cannot come from nothing: True

Says who?

originally posted by: daskakik

"something cannot come from nothing"

Says who?

Physics: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

originally posted by: edmc^2
Since God is UNCREATED, therefore He has no beginning and has no end. He always existed.

And this is where everything you have stated falls apart. Your entire standpoint is hinged on this 'infallible' fact.

Otherwise the alternative is, he was created, which regresses to an un-ending question of who created the creator of God.

Bingo. You've identified why your position on 'there must be a creator' fails every single time. Unless you take the stance, as you have, that said creator "always was and always is".

With that, you've completely glossed over the massive black hole in your position.

Science can't answer it -- but it isn't afraid to say it doesn't know, but we'll do our best to find out.

You are happy to ignore these fatal flaws in your belief system so you faith is maintained.

What a horrible way to live one's life....

originally posted by: cooperton
Physics: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

That only applies to the physical.

Your argument is for something outside of that so it does not apply. Just a small inconvenience.

a reply to: cooperton

1) citation needed
2) too vague to be meaningful
3) see 1) and 2)

"Therefore, God" is a hilariously illogical conclusion.

Are you going to pretend to understand logic as well as evolution? I mean it's entertaining, if nothing else.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: jjsr420

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: jjsr420
a reply to: edmc^2

Nobody knows.

Hence the concept of Infinity comes to play an important role in order to see (understand) why space is infinite in all directions.

Spy66 is good at this - if space is finite then where is the universe expanding to?

Again. Nobody knows if space is, or is not infinite. It is expanding currently, but we do not know if this will continue forever. We. Do. Not. Know. Either. Way.

If you only open your mind to the possibility of an invisible reality then you might just get a glimpse of it.

If you only open your mind to the possibility of fairy god mothers then you might just get a glimpse of them.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: cooperton

1) citation needed
2) too vague to be meaningful
3) see 1) and 2)

"Therefore, God" is a hilariously illogical conclusion.

Are you going to pretend to understand logic as well as evolution? I mean it's entertaining, if nothing else.

take a breather.

1) something cannot come from nothing - see the universal "conservation of energy law"
2) something is existent - this is obviously true.
3) if 1 and 2 are true, then something was never nothing and therefore something always existed

You have to prove 1 or 2 to be false in order to falsify the conclusion (3).

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: daskakik

"something cannot come from nothing"

Says who?

Physics: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

And this magically doesn't apply to god?

No offense but logic is not your strong suit. If you want to believe in god, that's fine, but why are you trying to convince us and pretend to justify your position? It's faith based. Deal with it. You aren't convincing anybody.

a reply to: cooperton

Ok, a couple of things:

Firstly, *even if your premises were true*, your conclusion does not follow.

Secondly, your premises aren't even substantiated in any shape or form.

So a double fail on the logic for you.

originally posted by: Barcs

And this magically doesn't apply to god?

God always was existent. It is exactly what the proof is demonstrating by "3". Don't be so quick-triggered to ridicule anything that doesn't conclude the same as your beliefs.

If you want to believe in god, that's fine, but why are you trying to convince us and pretend to justify your position? It's faith based. Deal with it. You aren't convincing anybody.

You would agree with such logical progression if it agreed with your worldview.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I know you have tunnel vision to the grave. I'm just speaking my mind.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: cooperton

Ok, a couple of things:

Firstly, *even if your premises were true*, your conclusion does not follow.

Why not? If something can't come from nothing, and something is existent, then something always was existent because it never could have been nothing.

Secondly, your premises aren't even substantiated in any shape or form.
So a double fail on the logic for you.

If you are trying to discredit the law of energy conservation just to try to belittle my logical proof of an always existent God I would have to say that's rather bull-headed of you.

a reply to: cooperton

Circular logic is circular.

Rinse and repeat.

a reply to: cooperton

We'll just have to cut our losses and add logic to the list of easily digestible topics you will not grasp.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: cooperton

Circular logic is circular.

Rinse and repeat.

I did a 3 step logical progression. Very common for making a proof. If the premises are true then the inherent conclusion must also be true - to falsify the conclusion you have to falsify the premises.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: cooperton

We'll just have to cut our losses and add logic to the list of easily digestible topics you will not grasp.

Is insult your logic? We'll do this one step at a time: Law of energy conservation - true or no?