(September 23, 2012 at 3:03 am)Undeceived Wrote: To be clearer, my argument: According to observation and testing of our universal laws, all transference of energy has had a cause. Also, all causes create a transference of energy. No cause has been observed without a transference and no transference has been observed to be without cause. Therefore, all transference of energy necessitates a cause. Hence, any production of atoms using energy also needs a cause. Therefore the universe could not have begun without a cause. I conclude we need either a catalyst not bound to this law of causation (non-natural) or one outside of the universe's closed system (also technically non-natural).
Why do you disagree?
How do we know that our universe isn't all that there is? You assume that our universe is a closed system, but there can still be things outside of it. Likewise, 'because he must exist' is a reason, but not a cause. It tells why you think he exists, but it provides no actual evidence to any cause for his existence. That leaves you with two possibilities: a spontaneous catalyst (or at least one we don't understand yet) caused a grand chain reaction, creating the universe, or a spontaneous god manipulated every aspect of the universe's development from the start. Keep in mind that despite being omnipotent, god couldn't have created himself, for he wouldn't have existed to do so. He would have to be spontaneous, or have a cause infinitely more complex than a simple energy catalyst + physics
+ time.
John Adams Wrote:The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.
