Our New Home
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Here's a place to critique Ray Comfort without being subject to his rules of censorship. We are a community of mostly atheists and agnostics, but theists are welcome to join. Sign up by emailing MacGyver Jr. - See his profile.
Yup. I've used this before to make the following argument:
ReplyDeleteIf we are to use logic to demonstrate the universe must have had a creator, then we can not ignore logic when it also demonstrates that the creator must have also had a creator.
The First Cause argument is a good one, but Creationists are only interested in logic when it supports their arguments; they eschew it when it doesn't.
Ask them why we should listen to their logic when they're not *really* interested in it themselves, and you wont get a straight answer.
What,
ReplyDeleteAnd on what reasoning do you rest the plausability of your statement?
Were you responding to me, Dale? If you have the time, please show me the/my statement you reacted to.
ReplyDeleteThis video is an epic fail.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all this is not special pleading. There are many other things that are eternal and did not begin to exist so that athests can affirm that they are uncaused.Even atheists must affirm things like the laws of logic , abstract mathematical concepts and proportions are eternal. If the atheist says that these things are not eternal we have to say there was a time where the laws of logic did not apply and a proposition and its negation could both be true (a nonsense universe- because Canada could be north of the border and south of the border at the same time) or they must say that there was a time when 2+2 did not equal 4 .
So this is not special pleading. If the atheist can affirm that these things are timeless and don't need a cause , why can't they accept the same reasoning for god.
And about the thing about science and causality. i would tend towards the more deterministic models of the universe even though the reasearch is a bit incomplete
ReplyDelete