appolose said:
I do believe your objection was, however, that it was a fallacy to say the universe needed a creator while God did not. So I'm not quite sure how this demonstrates a God would need a creator logically. The point was, if there were such a need for the universe to have a nonphyscial creator, it does not necessarily follow that the nonphyscial creator would need a creator. If I say "A needs B to exist", it does not follow to say "Then B needs C to exist". It's perfectly consistent. And it is quite a step to say that all are wholly human made. Who's to say that such myths didn't have a real, particular source for themselves? |
Agreed
About 50 years ago most atheistic views were that the universe was eternal and therefore no need for God, however overwhelming evidence for the 'Big Bang' has given us evidence that the universe did in fact have a start. So therefore something needed to 'create' the universe, perhaps you believe in a 'universe creating machine' but a God who is spirit and outside of our known space and time seems more reasonable than a bread making machine for universes in another dimension that somehow came into being without a cause, or was caused by something that was uncaused, and happened to make a universe with the right conditions to expand and form stars and planets and life.
And with regards to Leprechauns etc, people claim to have seen them, Christians don't claim to have physically seen God, surely the best way of convincing people to follow a lie would be to tell them you saw something? As it is xtns just say they have seen God's work etc, which if it was a lie, wouldn't make much sense to me. Also, surely something that is capable of creating our universe is going to be completely beyond our comprehension anyway, so a God who is spirit explains that, rather than people who are convinced 'science' (seriously, can people not be more specific?) will explain everything in due time, even Stephen Hawkings has admitted that won't be the case.
