Since when is it okay to set one law and make it empirical, then excuse a creator into it for ID’s sake?
Posted by admin | Filed under Religion & Spirituality
Point One: Everything must have a creator. This universe had to have been created by something.
Point Two: The creator doesn’t need to be created. He has always been.
What??? How does that work? Are we just making things up now? If you’re going to argue for ID at least avoid contradicting yourself.
How is this reconciled? How is this not just imagining up an explanation of epic proportions to MAKE the pieces fit like a wicked stepsister trying to squeeze on a glass slipper?
September 15th, 2009 at 2:55 am
I just punched the air and said, “BAM!!” I do that when people make great points or say things that I like. =]
—
The Scientific Method: Here are the facts. Now let’s draw conclusions from them.
The Creationist Method: Here is the conclusion. Now let’s find facts that help support it.
╔═════════════════════════════════════
║Those who regard a freedom from the false morals and obsolete
║practices regarding *** or religion as debauched are doing naught
║but corrupting their minds with foolishness.
║
║My morals come from compassion; my compassion from
║understanding. And I seek to know and understand… everything.
╚═════════════════════════════════════
September 16th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
** Nods head**
Been looking for those very words myself..well done!
September 19th, 2009 at 5:58 am
The Bible says God is there and the Bible is backed up by miracles and revelations and facts. End of story.
September 20th, 2009 at 6:38 am
Since you existed………you must have been crafted by an intelligent designer, no doubt
.
September 22nd, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Emergence could techincally be considered a creator. Emergence needs no creator because it’s more of a process than an actual thing.
September 24th, 2009 at 8:08 am
Aristotle again. In an eternal world something MUST be necessary because contingent things will necessarily cease to exist at some point and have no efficient cause to bring them back into existence.
Has nothing to do with ID !!!!!!
IT is a law but not as you say, it is a law of thought. It must be true or nothing is true. ANd it is not empirical except in that one is arguing from what is and is present to the senses back to what cause can be known.
As for the ID part, where the Hell does that fit in ?????
September 26th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
“How is this reconciled?”
It is NEVER reconciled.
They just repeat the same script back at you as though you didn’t understand cos it’s so simple to understand cos they understand it cos it’s so simple to understand.
Jeez, I nilly got ****** in the vortex.
~
September 27th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
I agree with you.
However let me play devil’s advocate,
“Point One” refers to things within time. All things within time (causality) require a causal event to create them.
i) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
ii) The Universe began to exist.
ii) Therefore, the Universe had a cause.
Now “Point two” is used a method of placing “an uncaused first cause” to begin everything else. By placing this “god” outside the space time continuum. It is not bound by time thus does not require a cause, since there is no before or after to it.
As i say this is not my personal belief on the matter but it is the most rational argument given by Deists that i have heard.
_()_
September 27th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
In exactly what way is your “I don’t know how it happened” different than my “I don’t know how it happened”?
Other than one of us believes in God and the other doesn’t of course.