Phat writes:
quote:
I believe that it makes more sense for any type of creation....be it a thought, a word, a physical invention, or a math formula...to have had a Creator.
Why? Why is it that god gets to be uncaused but everything else doesn't? If you're going to allow that there are some things that happen all on their own, you're going to have to explain the criteria that allows us to distinguish those that can from those that can't.
quote:
I also don't see a problem with assuming that a Creator need not be created.
That's fine. What you need to do is explain why only some things get to be "uncreated" while others don't.
quote:
What audacity for the robot to assume that his Daddy had to have a Daddy!!
Not at all. It is, after all, the seeming nature of things. Everybody else had a creator: Why should you be any different?
And it turns out your robot is correct: You did have a creator: Your parents. You certainly aren't going to lie to your robot and say you sprang into the world unbidden, are you?
quote:
Why the need for infinite regress?
Because if everything needs a creator, then that includes those who create. If you're goint to say that there is a creator that violates this edict, then you're going to have to explain why.
quote:
Why must humans seek an answer except the one they don't like?
Because.
Don't like that answer? Then you just answered your own question.
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to
Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
