[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sen say wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Your comparing the stuff of fantasy to that which created the universe? One is not like the other…[/quote]
I don’t believe God created the universe…there’s no proof He exists…it’s an extreme example, sure…but…I think it’s a valid question…insane…but valid…
What would you do if The Church came out with a ‘found’ book of the Bible that talked about Santa Clause and The Easter Bunny wouldn’t you have to accept it as God’s Holy Word?[/quote]
Don’t muck up the conversation with bullshit. What created the universe(s) then? Where did existence come from?[/quote]
He doesn’t know that answer and you don’t know it was your Biblical God.
Even if you apply the kalam cosmological argument, unless you CANNOT replace God with Mystical Creation Fairies, you’re no further to the truth.
[/quote]
The Kalam cosmological is the worst form ever, yet it’s the one people always refer to for some reason. The cosmological form is applicable though. No you cannot replace an uncaused-cause, prime mover with “Mystical Creation Fairies”. That would be logically incorrect.
[/quote]
I’m not saying replace the prime mover. I’m saying it’s impossible to prove that it was indeed the holy Biblical God instead of the Mystical Creation Fairies in these types of arguments.
[/quote]
True it’s impossible to prove the God we know is the prime mover, however, the inference is strong. Said prime mover necessarily contains properties only a “god” could have, particularly, creative properties and a will. Something with God like properties is likely to be God. God is the creator, prime mover is creator, therefore, God is the prime mover…Provable, no. I would argue that a god created by as a result of the prime mover wouldn’t really be all that. I pay homage to the Creator, which God claims to be. If he is lying or I am wrong, oh well. I lose little more than time. In the end it won’t matter a lick.