(October 9, 2009 at 6:07 pm)Nick A. Wrote: The alternative you presented was that of a divine creator. We must use God's existence in the poetic sense in order to hold discussions regarding his existence.
That's fair.
(October 9, 2009 at 6:07 pm)Nick A. Wrote:(October 9, 2009 at 4:34 pm)Meatball Wrote: Is God alive? Do we assume he came into existence spontaneously or is he an exception to this line of logic?
And added to this...why would the creator be an exception to this logic?
I thought I answered that when I said: Second, your comment would assume that God has his origin, if He has one, in our universe (space/time continuum). I would not hold that, and, therefore, would conclude that God is not covered by my syllogism.
(October 9, 2009 at 6:07 pm)Nick A. Wrote: You (rjh4) that assume because you cannot accept non-living matter as a form of origin, that divine creation must automatically be the alternative. Is this really the best alternative you foresee?
That is similar to Eilonnway who said: "Just because you can't imagine another method, does not mean it doesn't exist."
I am open to hearing the alternatives and thinking about them if you are willing to share.
(October 9, 2009 at 6:07 pm)Nick A. Wrote: Also, for the sake of the discussion, can I assume that the creator you are referring to is the Christian God?
Certainly I believe in the Christian God. However, for the syllogism I proposed, I do not think that is necessary.