Ah... so this is where y'all have been hiding!!
A new plaything! Excellent!...
(do note I didn't read the whole thread, the first post was enough to see a slaughter coming... so repetition is expected)
You can't say anything about how Nature itself come about...
Well... "in Nature" is a crappy way of saying this, let me rephrase in better words:
All those trillions of cause and effects you can witness in the Universe, exist "in" the Universe.
You can't say anything about how the Universe itself come about, from those.
Then there's Lawrence Krauss:
The fact is that we are here and now, so you can't say we shouldn't be here.
Invalid premiss, leads to invalid conclusion.
Once more, faulty reasoning from a theist... Why am I not surprised?
A new plaything! Excellent!...
(do note I didn't read the whole thread, the first post was enough to see a slaughter coming... so repetition is expected)
(July 31, 2014 at 5:39 pm)MPCADF Wrote: The burden of the proof remains on the atheist because I've done my part with the proof for the 'uncreated Creator' which remains unchallenged.All those trillions of cause and effects you can witness in Nature, exist "in" Nature.
We observe trillions of cause and effects in nature, and no hard evidence of something from nothing (that is, non-existence), so nature can't start up from nothing.
You can't say anything about how Nature itself come about...
Well... "in Nature" is a crappy way of saying this, let me rephrase in better words:
All those trillions of cause and effects you can witness in the Universe, exist "in" the Universe.
You can't say anything about how the Universe itself come about, from those.
Then there's Lawrence Krauss:
(July 31, 2014 at 5:39 pm)MPCADF Wrote: And nature cannot always have existed because if it did, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened.And I may have happened an infinite number of times, too! This is just one more.
The fact is that we are here and now, so you can't say we shouldn't be here.
(July 31, 2014 at 5:39 pm)MPCADF Wrote: Therefore,
Invalid premiss, leads to invalid conclusion.
Once more, faulty reasoning from a theist... Why am I not surprised?