: In all that you've written, Gideon, you still haven't answered the one question which forces me, practically against my will, to believe in God, and that is, how can something come from nothing? You told me that this was only an assumption on my part, but it (that something cannot come from nothing) seems to me to be a logical assumption.But this is the crunch; how can you apply "logical assumption" to something as fundamentally unbound by logic as God?
If you do believe something can come from nothing, then it is as logical to believe that the Universe came into existence spontaneously as it is to believe God came into existence spontaneously.
If you don't believe that something can come from nothing, then where does God come from?
Cause and effect are logical concepts; and thus they cannot be applied to something as non-logical as a deity.
If you believe ultimately that God exists and is eternal, you don't ultimately believe in cause and effect; because it would be a contradiction to assume that cause and effect was a universal truth whilst also assuming that God need not follow cause and effect.
: I know you've written about bubble chambers and antimatter, things about which I only have a Star Trek fan's understanding of, but you know that I responded: where did the antimatter (or any STUFF) originally come from? Spontaneously, from nothing?
If cause and effect is a universal truth, then either the Universe came spontaneously from nothing or God came spontaneously from nothing; either one of these is a violation.
Which came first, the chicken, or the egg?
If you believe in causality, then there is no starting point; both the chicken *and* the egg have been created for ever; thus God (the chicken) is merely the product of another God behind him.
If you don't believe in cause and effect, then you have no ultimate reason to assume that an egg implies a chicken.
: Again, I ask you if one cannot make a "logical assumption" that something cannot come from nothing, and given this logical assumption, logically deduce that God exists?
But if you can logically assume that something can come from nothing, why do you assume that the Universe needs a Creator?
: I acknowledge that the existence of God is beyond proof.
Which means that any physical object, like the Universe or the Bible cannot be cited as evidence of God's existence; since it cannot provide clinching proof.
: Still (and I may be just stubbornly boneheaded here), I don't see why one cannot accurately say, "The only logical explanation for the origin of the universe is an alogical entity."
The problem being that you can never use a logical argument to provide sound logical support of the alogical. Try making one and one equal three.
: I offer you the option of answering, MDG, you're an idiot who knows nothing about logic, in which case I'll quit this topic and move on to new territory.
I'm not in the habit of calling people idiots just because I don't agree with them, MDG. And thanks for being open-minded on this debate. I didn't expect anyone to meet my challenge, because I'm pretty certain it's watertight; but you had a damn good try.
Gideon Hallett.
None.
