happydolphin said:
No, my definition does not require causation to be true, but it is supported by the causality argument I provided earlier. It's not a dependency, it's support to the definition. Meaning, the definition applied to the case of the evolution of species from non-living matter fits well with what we know to be true (existence of matter prior to the creation of sentient beings). Applied as well to the notion of God, it fits well too. Consider the shape of a jigsaw piece, consider a square and a triangle. If we're comparing the edge length of the three objects, despite how different their shape is (causality in one, not in the other), if their edges match, then I'm satisfied in the test. It's the same thing here. |
lol, your definition for existence was A exists because B requires it to exist. You said A does not have to exist for B to exist and then proceeded to claim that A exists.
You realize evolution does not require God, right?
