Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic,alt.religion.christian,alt.politics.correct,alt.christnet,talk.religion.misc,alt.folklore.urban,alt.christnet.bible,talk.abortion,alt.blasphemy,alt.postmodern,sci.lang,alt.catastrophism,alt.fan.publius,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel-eecis!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!iglou!news
From: gnewman@iglou.com (Greg 'Bonz' Newman)
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution Survey Now Complete
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: dp1-031.ppp.iglou.com
Message-ID: <Dtxonu.Fwu@iglou.com>
Sender: news@iglou.com (News Administrator)
Reply-To: gnewman@iglou.com
Organization: Wormsby Works
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
References: <xanidu-2306960830540001@lucky118.nuts.nwu.edu> <4qlp8s$cll@news.ox.ac.uk> <xanidu-2506962023090001@lucky146.nuts.nwu.edu> <4qr4ss$et2@news.ox.ac.uk> <31D20104.2C54@pe.net> <31d317b3.171113541@news.airmail.net> <31d4c28e.97447171@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov> <Pine.SGI.3.91.960630142132.3518H-100000@umbc8.umbc.edu> <4r8lse$q51@news.nyu.edu> <Pine.SGI.3.91.960702030725.21343E-100000@umbc10.umbc.edu> <4rbi24$pro@mailgate.lexis-nexis.com> <4rbm0j$mr8@msunews.cl.msu.edu>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 20:53:40 GMT
Lines: 60
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:185939 sci.lang:56839

On 2 Jul 1996 17:24:35 GMT, Kitty <.> wrote:

>christw@lexis-nexis.com (Christopher C. Wood) wrote:
>>In article <Pine.SGI.3.91.960702030725.21343E-100000@umbc10.umbc.edu>, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> writes:
>>
>>|> Okay, tell me what's wrong with my "personal interpretation."
>>|> Here's the argument, in brief:
>>|> Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
>>|> Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
>>|> 	support: big bang model and the failure of its alternatives
>>|> 	support: 2nd law of thermodynamics
>>|> Conclusion: The universe has a cause of its existence.
>>
>>Premise 1 may or may not be true.  For the sake of the argument, I'll
>>accept it.

>what do you mean for the sake of the arguement? something can't come out 
>of nothing.

 Uh... why not?

>>
>>|> Now the cause of the universe cannot be within the universe, for
>>|> then the effect would precede the cause, and there would be no
>>|> cause to begin with.  Therefore the cause of the universe must be
>>|> outside the universe, that is to say, the cause of the universe is
>>|> non-material, i.e., non-corporeal, i.e., spiritual....
>>
>>|> Tell me what's wrong with my premises and/or reasoning.
>>
>>Your leap from "outside the universe" to "spiritual" is unsupported.
>>All you can derive from your Premise 1 is that the universe had a
>>cause outside the universe, which is therefore inaccessible to
>>everything within the universe.

>The cause of universe may or may not be in the universe. The problem is 
>that it couldn't come out of nowhere!

Again, why not?

> There has to be a logical 
>explaination that mankind has not found yet and probobly never will. 
>Just the fact that universe needs a creator doesn't mean we should 
>believe in God. It's the same consept. where did God come from? It 
>couldn't always exist. If you say something *can* exist for eternity 
>then why say God? say universe, at least we have proof that the universe 
>exists.

>regards,

>Kitty
>>
>>Chris
>>-- 
>>Speaking only for myself, of course.
>>Chris Wood    christw@lexis-nexis.com   cats@CFAnet.com




