Quote:
Originally Posted by lagtight
As entertaining as your rant against Mr. Comfort may be, it might be more on point for you to address what I actually wrote, instead of something that Mr. Comfort said.
You seemed to have engaged my question earlier (
"How would Lagtight the teacher respond to Comfort's words?"), so I continued by telling you how I'd respond.
But ok, fair enough. Here's what was said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoundGuy
What, exactly, did the creator create?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lagtight
Everything other them Himself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoundGuy
Are you sure? How do you know?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lagtight
1. There is a creation.
2. A CREATION requires a CREATOR. That is to say, a creation can't have always existed; if it had always existed, then it was never created. In other words, something that was created had to come into being at some point in time.
--------------------
One way to prove that a painter exists is to find a painting. One need not have to know specifically who the painter was to know that there was a painter.
You have asserted that everything, except for God, is God's creation.
When asked for your justification, you then asserted that creation (which would be
everything that isn't God) requires a creator.
If
every creation requires a creator is just a general comment, then it is true by definition, and also mundane. If it is a justification for the existence of God, which is what you had been asked, then it is arguing in a circle.
This is exactly what Comfort does, which is why I asked you what you thought of his argument. And because you made essentially the same argument, I'm giving you essentially the same response.
Do you think you've made a different argument to Comfort?