Oh, such deep, deep thoughts. So, now, Fred is your 'causer' and he has a cause, so that proves what? Disney's "circle of life"? You can believe that nonsense if you want. I don't have enough groundless faith for that. The Bible takes much less faith than that gobblety-gook.
It is positively amazing to me what intellectual pretzels some people are willing to emulate -- just to avoid the obvious.
Thanks for the laugh.
Thank you.
So, now, Fred is your 'causer' and he has a cause, so that proves what?
It proves that Dataman's presumptive conclusion was not a logical necessity, there are other possibilities.
Disney's "circle of life"? You can believe that nonsense if you want. I don't have enough groundless faith for that.
Come back when you understand what I actually wrote. For possible elucidation, look up "gedanken experiments".
The Bible takes much less faith than that gobblety-gook.
Oh, give it a rest. The logical flaw in my post is... what?
It is positively amazing to me what intellectual pretzels some people are willing to emulate -- just to avoid the obvious.
Again, feel free to point out any flaw that you believe resides in my post. Your general amazement at what you imagine to be my motivation just doesn't cut it as an actual rebuttal.
My point, if you ever care to actually address it directly, is that the creator of a space-time universe need *not* necessarily be an "Uncaused Cause". He might be, he might not be. But contrary to Dataman's presumption, it's *not* an ironclad necessary condition/conclusion. He's begging the question.
If that point's too complex for you, there are plenty of other threads you might feel more at home in.