Originally posted by SuzianneWhen the analogy doesn't hold out, it may be an indication that the original argument was flawed. The original argument says 'we see something, we assume a creator'. Except the analogy takes something which, by definition, is known to have a creator then essentially states the obvious and pretends that some sort of argument has been made.
Are you saying that someone 'painted' the 'painter'? Not necessarily. That analogy doesn't hold in that context.
Originally posted by apathistEvidence towards the universe being created I think is obvious, no one has come up with
You overthink my joke. But seriously, if we understand what 'evidence' means well enough to accept big bang theory, some other conclusions that must be drawn are:
> the 'yesterday' before the big bang is beyond the limits of our current science and is in the realm of philosophy, which does happen to be where theism resides;
> therefore science and rel ...[text shortened]... stic musings which wander all over the map, and deserves no special place for the rational human
any other explanation other than pushing the beginning out a little more.
The BB does not address the beginning of all things, it is simply another story how
everything was already here then changed into something else. So the question of where
it all came from wasn't address, just another step in the ever ending saga of it was this,
than it was that, then it turned into this.
Originally posted by KellyJayWhy do you assume there is a beginning? Why couldn't the universe always have existed?
Evidence towards the universe being created I think is obvious, no one has come up with
any other explanation other than pushing the beginning out a little more.
The BB does not address the beginning of all things, it is simply another story how
everything was already here then changed into something else. So the question of where
it all came from was ...[text shortened]... nother step in the ever ending saga of it was this,
than it was that, then it turned into this.
You, after all, have set the precedent by claiming God to be eternal and outside the human concept of time.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeSo you are one of those who doesn't need to see something to believe it.
Why do you assume there is a beginning? Why couldn't the universe always have existed?
You, after all, have set the precedent by claiming God to be eternal and outside the human concept of time.
Originally posted by KellyJayNonsense. There are plenty of explanations. Its just that none of them have any evidence in their favour, creation included.
Evidence towards the universe being created I think is obvious, no one has come up with
any other explanation other than pushing the beginning out a little more.