Okay, I'm gonna practice my (barely) rudimentary logic skills for a moment.
1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(I reject this premise until someone can demonstrate with evidence that it's likely to be true, but for the sake of argument, let's continue.)
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
(Number 4 doesn't follow. Even if I accept premise 1., how do you get to stick "God" in there as a cause with no evidence?)
Therefore:
(5) God exists.
Arguments are not evidence (thanks Rob!). What I see here are massive assumptions about the nature of the universe which fall within the realm of cosmology and physics. Does this argument have any science behind its premises?
It would be like me declaring, "there is NO WAY the twin towers would have collapsed considering their internal structure!" when I have absolutely zero formal education in engineering. No rational person should take me seriously on that assertion with out robust supporting evidence.
I honestly don't understand how the KCA is supposed to prove anything...
1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(I reject this premise until someone can demonstrate with evidence that it's likely to be true, but for the sake of argument, let's continue.)
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
(Number 4 doesn't follow. Even if I accept premise 1., how do you get to stick "God" in there as a cause with no evidence?)
Therefore:
(5) God exists.
Arguments are not evidence (thanks Rob!). What I see here are massive assumptions about the nature of the universe which fall within the realm of cosmology and physics. Does this argument have any science behind its premises?
It would be like me declaring, "there is NO WAY the twin towers would have collapsed considering their internal structure!" when I have absolutely zero formal education in engineering. No rational person should take me seriously on that assertion with out robust supporting evidence.
I honestly don't understand how the KCA is supposed to prove anything...
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
