God & the Fairy Tree

This is just silly.I could equally claim that Zeus, Thor or the Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything we see and that the proof of this is the existence of everything we see.
I could claim that the proof of formation through natural processes (e.g. evolution) is the existence of everything that has been formed through natural processes.However it is a pointless and circular argument that could be applied to any would-be creator or creating process that we could conceivably think up.Existence is not evidence of supernatural creation. Existence proves nothing other than existence (and even that is debatable if you want to get philosophical)

In the case of reality, the universe we live in, we are left with a house and many claimants. There is not one entity claiming the position of builder but rather many. There is also the claim that no one or thing built it, it just is.So your claim that God created the universe must be weighed against all the other claimants.Can you offer any evidence that supports your claimant?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I will take your hint and reply with another. If you reply that my response of eternal status implies that our universe is free'd from intent, then I will imply that it is completely benign to anticipate that our universe(showing age) would be the one and only product of eternity. Furthermore, it would even "more" benign to reason that out of eternity would come no intelligence preceding out own.This could make an excellent topic of conversation in another thread, however the subject has already been mapped by others and conclusions have come about. fascinating nonetheless)

Wow. Does this sentence have any meaning?

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

So true, "no one built it" is an option. Although it is not very popular with logical aspects of life, it has gained acceptance where the origin of life is concerned.Again, you are correct in asserting that this claim has many claimants. And the answer to your question is yes, I have evidence which supports my choices on matters. Edited by pbee, : typo

Many of the other claimants also have evidence that they find equally compelling.So it then comes down to an assessment of who has the most objective, corroborated and reliable evidence.Given that that is the very aim of science it is unlikely that your evidence will measure up too well.

Don't be shocked by this, but some people have come to the conclusion that in order for life to exist, the eternity(component) is inevitable. Having said this, there are a certain number of people, who believe that the only thing to come out of eternity is us.This is what I said when I heard such reasoning. "Wow"

As mentioned, we have no definitives. It all comes down to personal assessments(nothing more). However, we can evaluate and measure the values of those claims to draw conclusions.I can't personally say how compatible the issue is with scientific methods. But this has no bearing on ones ability to evaluate the problem.

Thanks for the speculation. Speculation is not evidence. If you have any, we'd all like to see it.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

I don't mean to make people squirm, however the fact that we exist is the evidence(as initially stated). And to this evidence, we have a claim. It may not be what we like. However, the fact remains that our existence has been claimed by God. Until we can prove otherwise, His claim stands to reason.We all know, that no matter how we manipulate a problem we can never change its value. We can however, expand and get lost in the calculations(diversions).PS. I realize God is only one of many claimants and the focus was on one particular doctrine.

Are you seriously suggesting that independently corroborated conclusions and confirmed predictions based on a multitude of physical evidence is not a superior method of objectively analysing and determining the nature of reality than biblical interpretation. (for example)?It all comes down to the reliability of the evidence. If you actually put any evidence forward for your assertions I suspect it will be easy to show that it is in fact deeply subjective and wholly unreliable.

As has also already been stated by multiple independant posters, this is circular reasoning and is logically invalid. This is not a court of law, and religion is not being charged with a crime. Your claim must be supported by evidence to be accepted as true. It is NOT "accepted until proven false."So, again, we are left with the fact that you are making claims and are unable to support them with anything other than faulty logic and circular reasoning. If you have any real evidence, now would be a good time to present it or conceed that you have nothing but personal faith, and no objective evidence.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

I could equally change this to -
However, the fact remains that our existence has been claimed to be due to natural processes God. Until we can prove otherwise, this claim stands to reason. as has been stated before this claim can be used to assert any form of creation, natural or otherwise that can be thought up.It is a circular and stupid argument. Please stop pointlessly re-iterating the same obviously flawed logic.

Thanks, I really needed something like that. - Well perhaps, lets go to the other extreme. If someone tells you that they love you, will you reach for your lab equipment and begin to apply scientific methods to validate that claim?God made the claim that created everything. He left a permit(written in stone) declaring his ownership on the work which has survived to this day.It up to us now, to evaluated and declare whether or not we accept His claim. - As far as science is concerned, we could effectively validate His claim, howewer at this stage we lack the equipment or knowledge to do so. That's not to say we will never have the capacity, it simply means were not there yet. Edited by pbee, : No reason given.

What about me? Remember, I'm the one who created the universe. Until he proves otherwise, my claim stands to reason.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.