--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > Barry, > > > > > > The first premise should be read as follows: > > > > > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a CAUSE. > > > > > > Let us know if you agree with this. > > > > It sounds to me as if it's something that a > > determinist might think up. I have no idea > > whether it's true or not, and neither do you. > > > Let us talk about the first premise. Don't you agree that you were born > through your mother who conceived you with your father? As such, you as a > physical being had a CAUSE. Correct? If yes, then you would agree with the > first premise.>
Fallacy of inductive reasoning. > > > > > > > > > > > > MY point was about your second premise. You > > have no way of knowing whether the universe > > was "created," in the sense that it didn't > > exist one moment and then existed the next. > > Buddhists (or at least some of them) believe > > that the universe was never created, that it > > has always been, is now, and always will be. > > There has never been a time when it was not. > > There will never be a time when it is not. > > > > Therefore the whole issue of "What was around > > before the First Creation that enabled Creation > > to happen?" is moot. Without the notion of a > > First Creation, this whole argument falls apart. > > > > My point is that humans, out of their fear and > > lack of understanding of their own birth and > > death, project a similar birth and death onto > > the universe. The fact that they do so doesn't > > make it so. > > > > C'mon, John...say it. I know you can. :-) IF > > the universe is eternal, and was never "created," > > then this whole argument is hooey. > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > This part of the discussion reminds me of the Kalam Cosmological > > > > > Argument which goes like this: > > > > > > > > > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a beginning. > > > > > > > > > > 2. The universe began to exist. > > > > > > > > > > 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. > > > > > > > > Ahem. Might I point out that point #2 is merely > > > > an assumption on your part, one caused by not > > > > being able to conceive of the universe as eternal > > > > and never-created? > > > > > > > > If the universe is eternal, point #2 is invalid, > > > > and thus point #3 is invalid. > > > > > > > > Puny humans, because they have a beginning and > > > > an end, find it difficult to conceive of anything > > > > that doesn't. Their lack of imagination, however, > > > > don't mean shit to the universe. :-) > > > > > > > > > >
