On Apr 16, 4:15 pm, SM <[email protected]> wrote: > > But the first possibility requires only one assumption; the second > > requires at the outset that there in fact exists energy neither > > created by the Creator nor ever having been part of it; the third > > requires assignment of an additional capability to our Creator.... > > note that the second and third formulations might be read as not > > requiring that the Creator be able to manipulate its own energy, which > > is then no longer necessary to account for our Universe, but this > > proposes an equally unnecessary requirement of adoption of a > > distinction between the kind of energy of which the Creator is made > > and the kind from which our Universe is made.... because the first > > possibility accounts for everything that can be observed in our > > Universe, there is no requirement that anything additional be assumed, > > including an additional characteristic of our Creator to create > > something from nothing -- this, then, is no more required by our > > Universe than is the Creator's favorite color being purple.... > > Ok, I follow how you conclude that your view requires fewer assumptions be > made (when all you have to inform yourself is nature itself). > > Fewer assumptions is not a guarantor of veracity, but even if it were, it > strikes me that I still have only one assumption to make, since I am > informed by another source other than nature itself. I assume (although I > call it faith) that my source for information is reliable and true. It > provides us all the other answers that we need, including much concerning > the nature of God and the origin of the universe. > Let me guess, the Qur'an, right? Oh, but what a bundled assumption that would be!! Putting hordes of assumptions on a piece of paper and declaring that piece of paper to be explanatory does not reduce your assumptions to a single one, it merely collates your many assumptions in a single place, but leaves every single one to the same standard of investigation.... indeed, it does the opposite of easing your burden, for if you rest upon the whole of that one source being reliable and true, then the determination that any single assumption made therein is untrue -- or even unreliable -- undermines every other assumption made therein....
And, lest we confuse terms, there is a difference between "nature" as in brooks and rocks and trees, and nature as in our Universe and all that exists within it.... I've never seen a book outside our Universe, and I've seen how the ones within it get made, so anything coming from a book that proposes information beyond what human authors could have gleaned from observation of our Universe itself, or from fertile imaginations, must itself be demonstrated by reference to evidence other than that book.... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "A Civil Religious Debate" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/a-civil-religious-debate?hl=en.
