Re: An atheist professor & his student

On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 13:53:02 +0100, "DaveD"
<davedn1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>"Welsh Dog" <welshdog@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>news:0sh3f41hvl7jqccgkbogf3uiqv4djk5hrs@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:42:07 -0500, Louis Epstein <le@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>Welsh Dog <welshdog@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>: On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:56:33 -0500, Louis Epstein <le@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>:>Toon <toon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>:>: On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 07:51:35 -0500, "BubblyBabs"
<ng@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

<snip>

>>>:>No...God is by definition uniquely uncreated.

>>>: If 'god' can be uniquely uncreated... why shouldn't the universe??

>>>Only one entity can be uniquely uncreated
>>>and constitute the explanation for the
>>>existence of all others.
>
>>>Having this attribute makes that entity God.

>>>So are you saying the Universe IS God?

>> Can you prove it isn't?

>Hmm, the problem with this sort of thing is that first you need to agree
on 
>a definition for what god is, and isn't. I doubt such an agreement will
be 
>easy or quickly reached!

So what is the purpose of the discussion in the thread if even
definitions are something you think we'd never agree on?? :)

>>>Because there MUST be a God for there to be ANYTHING.

>> Depends on your perspective! If, as you claim, 'god' was uniquely
>> created then there is no reason why the universe couldn't have been
>> uniquely created instead *not* as well!

>> Besides... it is quite within the bounds of logical possibility for a
>> god to have created this universe with its physical laws and yet,
>> being outside those laws itself, share existence with a multitude of
>> other beings we'd consider to be gods... tho maybe not the god of our
>> universe!!

>Descartes considered a range of options to explain his apparent
existence, 
>deconstructing his perceptions of reality step by step, proposing and 
>eliminating alternatives to prove he was real in his own right rather
than 
>someone else's idea or artifact, until he ended up with "cogito ergo
sum": I 
>think therefore I am.

>You need to something more along those lines to prove god's existence:
the 
>first statement above "because there MUST be..." is merely an unsup****ted

>assertion. You presumably believe it's true because you can't conceive of
an 
>alternative, but that doesn't prove it at all.

A logical possibility doesn't require proof... it simply 'is'.

Welshdog
-- 

News and views... for people like youse!!

Australian Opinion
(http://australianopinion.com)

Not as strange as it looks!