CreedFeed Community - View Single Post

uncertaindrumer · 10-01-2006, 08:49 PM

Quote: (Originally Posted by Lunar Shadow) ^^ Argument from exisitance is a ggod starting point UD don't get me wrong...

Indeed.lol

Quote: Philosipohy has been asking that type of question for a long long time (I.E. The Chicken and the egg)

Indeed.

Quote: but just being here doesn't answer anything but it is a good place to start.

I'd say it answeres a few things.

Quote: Heck us just being here one could argue a few different things such as.... Wo is to say we didn't evolve with the starting point of Abiogenesis?

I could get into the science of this and show that this is, if not impossible, nearly so. But that is unnecessary. Abiogenesis does not explain anything, really. It pushes the argument back one step. Admitting abiogenesis, the argument then says: okay, how did whatever we evolved from get here?

Quote: Whos says if there is a being powerful enough to create us... who says we are the main point of this universe or that he loves us at all?

I don't recall ever positing this, maybe you were responding to someone else. The argument from existance definitely does not prove God loves us.

Quote: or maybe he is a loving caring god who wants our praise but has no affect on what goes on (there are many steps here so I will just say and so on and so on)

Indeed. I was not asserting that existance necessitated the Christian God, though I do believe that we can reach that conclusion eventually through similar means.

Quote: Regardless every one here believes in some form of Abiogenesis (meaning life from non life) A sound theory is jugded as such for the when it makes the least possibe nubers of assumptions Christianity assmues much. Atheism (on the other hand) assumes one thing and then the logical progression from there. So based upon that I would say that Either Atheism or Deism (depending on the stripe of it) are more a viable theories because they really makes only 1 assumption.

First of all, I don't have a clue what these assumptions are that you are talknig about. The only thing I would say we assume, is our existance. I think you would agree that to get anywhere, we should assume that. After that, we make no more assumptions.

The Atheist's assumption of "abiogenesis" is not only not their only assumption, but is also not only an assumption--its an invention. There is no evidence for it. Whereas, the evidence for a god, higher being, necessary being, etc. comes from... us. Being here.

10-01-2006, 08:49 PM	#19
uncertaindrumer USER INFO » Status: Wound Up Posts: 1,255 Joined: Dec 2004 Currently: Offline	Re: I found this interesting. Quote: (Originally Posted by Lunar Shadow) ^^ Argument from exisitance is a ggod starting point UD don't get me wrong... Indeed.lol Quote: Philosipohy has been asking that type of question for a long long time (I.E. The Chicken and the egg) Indeed. Quote: but just being here doesn't answer anything but it is a good place to start. I'd say it answeres a few things. Quote: Heck us just being here one could argue a few different things such as.... Wo is to say we didn't evolve with the starting point of Abiogenesis? I could get into the science of this and show that this is, if not impossible, nearly so. But that is unnecessary. Abiogenesis does not explain anything, really. It pushes the argument back one step. Admitting abiogenesis, the argument then says: okay, how did whatever we evolved from get here? Quote: Whos says if there is a being powerful enough to create us... who says we are the main point of this universe or that he loves us at all? I don't recall ever positing this, maybe you were responding to someone else. The argument from existance definitely does not prove God loves us. Quote: or maybe he is a loving caring god who wants our praise but has no affect on what goes on (there are many steps here so I will just say and so on and so on) Indeed. I was not asserting that existance necessitated the Christian God, though I do believe that we can reach that conclusion eventually through similar means. Quote: Regardless every one here believes in some form of Abiogenesis (meaning life from non life) A sound theory is jugded as such for the when it makes the least possibe nubers of assumptions Christianity assmues much. Atheism (on the other hand) assumes one thing and then the logical progression from there. So based upon that I would say that Either Atheism or Deism (depending on the stripe of it) are more a viable theories because they really makes only 1 assumption. First of all, I don't have a clue what these assumptions are that you are talknig about. The only thing I would say we assume, is our existance. I think you would agree that to get anywhere, we should assume that. After that, we make no more assumptions. The Atheist's assumption of "abiogenesis" is not only not their only assumption, but is also not only an assumption--its an invention. There is no evidence for it. Whereas, the evidence for a god, higher being, necessary being, etc. comes from... us. Being here. __________________ Titans baby, Titans.