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: <DtxItz.8nr@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>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 18:47:44 GMT
Lines: 61
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:185918 sci.lang:56831

On Tue, 2 Jul 1996 03:18:16 -0400, david ford
<dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

>On 1 Jul 1996, B wrote:

>> david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >For hard evidence for God's existence from astronomy & physics,
>> >check out my postings in the string "Re: Prove God's existence
>> 
>> Read 'personal interpretation viewed through god-spectacles' instead of 
>> the words 'hard evidence'

>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.

No one else thinks this. Why do you?

>Premise 2: The universe began to exist.

Define 'the Universe'.  For instance, **if** the Big Bang theory
is correct, is the Universe we live in now a) the same thing as
the singularity; b) something less then ('part of') the
singularity; c) something completely different from the
singularity.

>	support: big bang model and the failure of its alternatives
>	support: 2nd law of thermodynamics

 The @nd Law is meaningless in this circumstance.

>Conclusion: The universe has a cause of its existence.

Only if you can demonstrate Premise 1 -- which is what you're
trying to prove.

>Now the cause of the universe cannot be within the universe, for then the 
>effect would precede the cause,

Huh? We determine cause and effect arbitrarily, just by saying
that the temporally first things cause later things. If you have
an effect preceeding the cause, you have the labels on backwards.
Just switch the labels.

 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....

Why would you think that 1) outside the Universe 2) non-material
3) non-corporeal and 4) spiritual are identical concepts?

You are trying to use words that describe things WITHIN our
Universe to describe things OUTSIDE our Universe. You can't DO
that. It would be like saying that Deutschmarks aren't money
because they don't have a picture of a US president on them.

>Tell me what's wrong with my premises and/or reasoning.


