Quote:
Originally Posted by always_sunni_
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunny
How are omnipotent, omniscient and (omni)benevolent supposed to imply uncaused?
I really don't know.
Then why are you advancing that as a rebuttal?
I think you're "For" argument fails, since you havent established that an omni-3 god has the property of being uncaused (which you implicitly claimed was true). Maybe I'm missing your point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by always_sunni
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunny
My preferred objection: the 'argument' isn't an argument, it's a premise (which conveniently includes the desired conclusion).
Is it a bad premise?
Yes - we have no clue what God would "need" in order to make the universe. What you term the "against argument" (which I labelled a premise) was an assertion that he could have done it in other, quicker ways, therefore is unlikely to have chosen this one. I don't think there is any evidence or reason to think this is true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by always_sunni
P.S. why is everyone saying "Neither"? I don't really get it
I'm saying it because I think the Big Bang is not evidence for or against God's existence - it's consistent with there being a god (who created some superdense matter in some 'spacetime' and then created some laws of physics which resulted in that appearing to have 'exploded' a couple of billion years later...) or with there being some other cause of the universe (which 'did' something similar).
Last edited by bunny; 07-05-2010 at 12:03 AM.