My House Did not have a Builder (or did it?)

[Dan Brooks]

(If a house shows up in a neighborhood, and no one saw it being built, did it have a builder?)

"From nothing nothing comes" is scientific. (I think it still is, isn't it? Under debate, maybe).
"The universe is something." I think that would be classified as a true statement.
"Therefore the universe came from something." I think that would be a nice logical conclusion.
Now, since it is universally observed (which observation is required in order for anything to be classified as scientific), that anything made has a maker, some consideration should be taken as to the nature of the maker of a given thing.
The maker of a wooden chair just needs to know enough about woodworking in order to have planned and accomplished the fashioning and construction of the chair. It is a functional item, with a useful purpose, so it would require intelligence to accomplish the production of a wooden chair, albeit not necessarily a great intelligence, because the item is not very complex.
A Rolex watch also requires a maker, and one who needs enough intelligence to make all the small intricate parts of the watch, and to make them all work together correctly and properly, and over a long period of time. The maker would have to know how to tell time, and how to cause the made item to also be able to tell time. This item is also quite functional, and also has a useful purpose, but since it is much more complex than a wooden chair, it requires more intelligence, and more labor as well, to accomplish the production of it.
Now the same could be said of a house, a hotel, a hospital, a skyscraper, or an entire city. Each requiring more intelligence, more organization, and more manpower to accomplish it's respective product.
So using this same reasoning, (and I think it is logical reasoning. Correct me if I am wrong), we must assume that the level of intelligence, organization, and power required to accomplish such a thing as an entire universe, and not just any universe, with all of it's nearly innumerable complexities, but a universe in which there is life, and not just life, but an astoundingly wide variety of forms of life, each with their various levels of intelligence, purpose, and function- I say we must assume that the level of intelligence, organization, and power required to accomplish this is utterly incalculable.
I think that conclusion is quite logical, and about as scientific as we can be, since, though we did not witness the creation of the universe, all other things that we know to be made are also known to have a maker, and the making of such made things can be observed. It would I think, therefore be quite an illogical conclusion that the universe itself could not have a maker.

(If a universe comes into existence, and no one saw it being made, did it have a maker?)

So you're going for the design fallacy.  Try and find out what happened to Paley's watch some day.

Oh, and this is obviously a cut and paste job, from all the tags wrapped around each paragraph.  If you're going to hit us with nonsense, please let it be your own nonsense in future.

---

Hello, OP.

The universe is very similar in its building blocks; for example you always have standards that make up what we know.
For instance; it's a standards that life as we know it require water. It's also a standard that Chemical reactions take place everywhere we know. The Physical realm we are a part of, is the same physical realm for others.

The design is unified; or in other words: was made by the same entity.
Even when we exclude this theory; we remain with the atoms that caused the big bang: where did they come from? It becomes an unbreakable loop until we break free from it with the assumption, that an infinite, stronger force we know nothing about -God-, existed and made the big bang happen.

The difference between theism and atheism; to me; is this exact spot: some believe the creator is intelligent; others believe the creator was thoughtless particles that exploded.

What creator? The whole thing makes itself.

---

Yes.  I am a god.  Now kneel down before me,  suckers!

Can I be excused on account of my bad knee? I've got a letter from my doctor.

PS I'm sorry I came in here, OP is obviously either a troll or from BJU and on assignment to convert some heathens with his knockdown second century knowledge.

It is my own "nonsense." I copied from another thread I posted it in in a Christian forum in a theistic evolution thread. I left out the last couple paragraphs because they were irrelevant to this thread. https://www.christianforums.com/threads/...t-72102948 (In case you want proof).
(And I wouldn't bow down to you, Joods, even if you could prove that you were a god. There are many gods to whom there is no need to bow down, and all of them are inferior to the real God.)

---

What are you talking about? With the cure thing. I've never heard of that other than in witchcraft, which God forbids.

Leviticus 14:1-7

That wasn't how they were healed from their leprosy. That was done of the day of their cleansing. The sprinkling of blood was symbolic of cleansing, and not only in that instance, but in general, because without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. It is the blood that makes atonement for the soul, because the life is in the blood. This was all symbolic of what the Messiah would do later in history. The blood has to be sinless in order to cover for sins, which is why the Messiah had to shed His blood and die on the cross. 
That's what the blood sacrifices of the Old Testament were symbolizing. That's why they were instituted.  
Leviticus 13 talks about all the ways to determine if the leprosy was healed or not,and whether the person was clean or not. And 14 instituted the ceremony that was to be done on the day that he was pronounced clean. That's all it is. It wasn't some sort of witch's brew or something. Those kinds of things were done too, but God forbid them to be done.