Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Reason, not blind faith.
Line 21: Line 21:     
::::See my problem is that I don't understand why something or someone "must be" eternal. Why could the universe have not 'just happened'? Sure it might be unlikely but maybe it isn't. I just don't see the need for God in a logical argument about the existence of anything. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 10:47, 29 September 2008 (AEST)
 
::::See my problem is that I don't understand why something or someone "must be" eternal. Why could the universe have not 'just happened'? Sure it might be unlikely but maybe it isn't. I just don't see the need for God in a logical argument about the existence of anything. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 10:47, 29 September 2008 (AEST)
 +
::::: See my problem is that I don't understand how something could have 'just happened' out of absolutely nothing.  If you want to fantasize that absolutely nothing can become something for no reason, then I can't stop you, but that is the realm of fantasy and blind faith, whereas I prefer to stick to reason and observation (we ''observe'' that everything that happens has a cause).  That something must be eternal is a deduction from that.  The logic for God is that this physical universe must have had a beginning, all events have a cause, the cause of all of physical reality must be something non-physical (i.e. supernatural), therefore there must be a God.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:21, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254

edits

Navigation menu