[LogicWings]

The necessity of an uncaused Creator is shown not by the design of the universe, but by the existence of the universe. The design of the universe is proof of a designer. But the existence of a universe filled with things which are of their nature contingent is proof enough of an uncaused, noncontingent Creator.

Once again, where did you get the idea of a 'Creator' independent of your decision, without any evidence, that there is one? There is no 'proof' of anything, other than what exists exists. Anything else is a Assumption, an Assertion without Proof, a Begged Question, a Smuggled Premise.

I found it interesting that each of Asimov's 'Arguments' were really fallacies in the creationist argument. Like the guy the I responded to earlier, he just went back the same, Argument by Analogy Fallacy the Isaac had already discounted with his 'Base 4' argument. Either one abandon's creationism or one abandon's logic. There is no other option.

[Arthur McGowan]

Once again, where did you get the idea of a 'Creator' independent of your decision, without any evidence, that there is one? There is no 'proof' of anything, other than what exists exists. Anything else is a Assumption, an Assertion without Proof, a Begged Question, a Smuggled Premise.

Not true. Here is the argument: If everything that exists is like the things that we can experience--i.e., finite and contingent on something else--then there could be nothing. But there is something. Therefore, there exists something which is real, but escapes our experience, and is infinite and not contingent on something else.

There is no begged question here. But it is necessary to ponder the question: If EVERYTHING that exists is contingent on something else, would there be ANYTHING?