-DM-

This long preamble to Pascal's Wager starts off with a non sequitur. It just doesn't necessarily follow that "If nothing is able to create something, then this law would be a constant, . . . [that] . . . it would still be possible for rocks to be created from thin air by no other interference, at any time henceforth and previous, unless a higher power had intervened.."

Thus, whatever conclusions are based on this premise are rendered moot.

-Don-

Mageth

This bit confuses me. You say:

2. The term 'creation' is dependent on the term 'time.' This is the case because if there was no time there would be no before and after, simply what is now, therefore meaning that whatever exists in the present will always be because there is no before and after.

And then:

(2) The original source of the chain reaction must have been created by a higher power through the higher power's own choice.

And later:

Who created God?

'Creation' needs 'time.' Without the term 'time' there is no before and after. Through logic it is evident that a creator of this universe must have created everything that exists, this means therefore that God created what we know as 'time', meaning we have a concept of 'before' and 'after', however this does not have to be the case in God's universe, which is the original universe before the creation of our own. This is the argument for everlasting life, the fact that 'time' does not exist in God's universe and therefore what is now will always be, the term 'always' is not even relevent as the only term for such a universe is 'the present.'

So you're saying "creation" is dependent on, even "needs" time, and god created this universe, but time doesn't exist in god's universe? Then how could god have created anything?

And if god's universe lacks time, how could it be the "original universe before the creation of our own"? (Remember you said without time there is no "before and after").

Mageth

Common sense tells us that if one world exists inside another world, and the former world ends, whatever was in the former world is now in the latter world.

Huh? Common sense speaks of experiential evidence; who has experienced such a thing?

It would seem logical that a creator would make some way of knowing what is going on in the world that was created.

Why would that seem logical?

It is logical that those who live in a paradise without deserving it, are good for nothing.

Why is that logical?

Life is so hard because God wants us to earn our way to his universe.

Huh?

Therefore God cannot interfere in the processes of life.

The bible is full of stories of god interfering in the processes of life. And later you yourself say:

It is evident that prayer works because no matter how hard a situation, if you pray before hand, the result will never ever be as bad as you expected.

So aren't you claiming that god somehow, sometimes, interferes with the "processes of life"?

There must be two constants. Good and bad.

Why "must" there be these two constants? And why are they "constants?"

There must therefore be a source for each; we have established that the source of good is God, and therefore the source of badness must be the opposite of God, which God calls Satan.

Why must there be a source for each? I haven't seen you establish any such thing. And who, pray tell, is the source of Satan? If god created this universe, then he gets full credit for everything in the universe, doesn't he?

Does God send us to hell? We send ourselves to hell.

And, according to your "logic," god created the universe in which it is possible for us to go to hell. Therefore god is responsible for us going to hell.

God is probably laughing at our logic.

If he existed, he'd no doubt be laughing at your post's (lack of, and misuse of the term) logic.

Keith Russell

davidstewart
Praying to God

It is evident that prayer works because no matter how hard a situation, if you pray before hand, the result will never ever be as bad as you expected. One can only try this for oneself, but it is guarenteed to work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Silent Acorns:
Am I to assume then that no one was praying on those planes as they were flown into the World Trade Centre? Or would you say that it turned out better than expected?

Silent's insightful response deserved repetition.

Keith.

HaysooChreesto!

Isn't the entire first two thirds just a huge "god in the gaps" argument?
If science cannot absolutely prove everything then "God musta dunnit"?

It seems that Gappy God and MR. Pascal are fast friends.

tommyc

I do not believe Mr. Stewart will be responding to any of our posts. Yet another unsuccesful "hit and run".

happyboy

awwwwwwwwwwwwww.......
i feel cheated.

happyboy

braces_for_impact

I didn't get too far past the first 4 points before I recognized this really wasn't worth too much of my attention, especially since it's doubtful this particular person will ever return to defend these ridiculous assertions.

I never understood driveby's. I suppose I just don't get it. Most of this stuff is unoriginal in any way, just the same old rehashed arguments taken from some fundie website, Ad Nauseum.

What do people think they'll accomplish with a driveby episode like this anyway? It's almost as bad as television "public service messages". The 'I'll prove god's existence in 5 minutes or less' arguments have about as much potential to change our attitude as NBC's 30 second commercial about 'embracing diversity' has to change the attitude of the Grand Dragon.


My apologies for the lousy sentence structure.

Regards,

Ron

dshimel

You start your argument with its own death. Common sense is neither. The term "common sense" is used to make unprovable assertions. If those assertions were truely common, you wouldn't have to make them. It would be like, it is common sense that this "e" is the letter "e".

Second, if there was sensable reason to believe them, you'd give the reason. By labeling them "common sense", you pretend that they need no proof.

"If nothing is able to create something, then this law would be a constant"

We don't have anyway of knowing what, it anything existed prior to the universe. It may be that the universe was created from something, and it may be that it was created from nothing. Just because it happened once, doesn't mean it must happen all the time. Just becuase it happened prior to the universe, does not mean it must happen within the universe. Just becuase we can't see outside our universe, doesn't meant tha an infinante number of universes aren't springing into existance every moment.


"Nothing can be created by anything less than itself, and anything that is created by one thing can only be, at the most, to the same standard as the creator."

As someone already pointed out, this is incorrect. A pair of hydrogen atoms and an oxygen, given a little start up heat, fuse into a water molecule. It could easily be justified that the water is greater than the hydrogen, the oxygen, or the heat "creator".

Through selective breeding of animals, we've created flightless birds that give a crap load of eggs. We've created breeds of cows that give enormous amounts of milk. We've created dogs that are smarter and more easily handled than the dogs that we started with.


"The laws of what we know as our universe do not need to be, and are almost certainly not, the laws of any possible higher universe."

Prove there are other possibilities. It may be this is the only possible type of universe. It may be that there are enough universes to cover every possibility of physical laws.

"This is so because in order for the laws that we as humans follow to be created, the creator must follow laws which are superior to ours"

So, what you do, is use unprovable assumptions that assume God, to prove the existance of God. It is the long way around to get right back to where you started.

You beleive in God, therefore, certain assumptions based on that belief must be true. Using those assumption, you can prove God. BFD.

davidstewart

Despite the comments I have received, I am stand firm in my beliefs. Perhaps you could counter my beliefs with some of your own, or even go as far to direct me to who you believe to be the correct scientists. We always regard the 'right' people, as the people who agree with us, so the chances are that whoever you regard to be correct will be in my opinion false. Such is the way of free thinking, but if you'd still rather go ahead and tell me who is correct I'd still prefer to see evidence to back this claim up.